re: #1009 Coracle

It might seem weak if you ignore the present. Past epochs do not have anthropogenic factors to contend with.

If CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been many times higher than what it is now, then anthropogenic factors may not be so critical as have been argued. Since I’ve also heard (but that may have been refuted) that an increase of CO2 generate diminishing returns in the sense of heating.

This is a lame canard, dealt with over and over again in multiple places.

You might point me to a site which does so in a convincing manner. What I’ve seen before is an attempt to argue that MWP was entirely local to Europe, which archeological evidence seem to refute.

My conclusions are backed by the data. The little ice age doesn’t refute anything. The last century-plus’ warming trend is superimposed atop long- and short-term natural cycles.

If the end of the little ice age causes an increase of CO2, then the conclusion you draw may not be as strong as you think.

Furthermore, I’m just a sceptic, not a denier in the sense that my mind is still open for supported arguments for AGW. Name-calling and obviously phony arguments weaken the proponents case however.