Geologic Record Shows No Relationship Between Temperature And CO2

From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.

Why does this scam continue?

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

141 Responses to Geologic Record Shows No Relationship Between Temperature And CO2

  1. Dave N says:

    Yeah, but look at how much CO2 increased during the Jurassic.. must have been all those dinosaurs driving SUV’s and breathing heavy.. the subsequent decline of course, when they died out.

  2. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    4000ppm and we went into an Ice Age before

    Maybe if they kept saying the Sun was Square they would think we would believe it

  3. Ian says:

    I’m sure Tony Duncan must be able to enlighten us on the subject and thereby score a goal for CAGW.

    • Ian says:

      Otherwise he might be considered a busted troll.

    • It’s amazing how many experts in climate like Tony Duncan global warming has spawned.


    • Tony Duncan says:


      Why would you say such a thing?
      haven’t you been reading my posts?

      the ONLY possible conclusion from looking at this is a fraud and huge conspiracy.
      How could anyone look at the above figure and not see that there is no possible connection between CO2 and temp?

      What I HAVE been saying is that you guys have to get your act together and get this into the peer reviewed journals with honest scientists and expose all the liars and bring this whole thing crashing down.
      With so much documented obvious evidence the scam can’t be maintained.

      • Your conspiracy spam is getting annoying. Take it to a 9/11 website.

      • Tony Duncan keeps forgetting about ClimateGate. But then he says there’s nothing to see in ClimateGate. So he thinks Phil Jones contemplated suicide over nothing. Anything is possible in global warming.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        But Steve my conspiracy comments are all based on YOUR posts and comments.
        Your non conspiracy explanations are not convincing, considering the massive of amounts of evidence you have documented here here.
        and you have yet to adequately countered any of my arguments that point to conspiracy. Your analogy of continental drift has little relation to the current situation as I have pointed out in detail. And you have failed to show how the Lysenko situation is NOT applicable in the ways that I have described.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I have not forgotten about climate gate. And you keep NOT reading my posts. Where did I say there was nothing to see? I have repeatedly said there is quite a bit to see there, and explained some of that.
        A number of people have posted their proofs of fraud here and I will try to get to them. I already posted one that has received no response.
        No one has asked me what I thought of Phil Jones’ suicide contemplation, but I guess you just know what I think.

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    You know why you know its all BS. In Victoria, Australia, there is an aluminum plant that uses 1/3 of the energy of the state.

    If it really was a climate emergency, you could just close this down, and you would save massive amounts of coal.–and-emissions-20100301-pdl8.html

    But nooooooooo the tax payer keeps giving it free electricity for many years to come.

    That’s why you know it’s complete BS.

    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

      Sorry I meant 20% of the state power. So one plant uses 20% of the whole state’s power

      Alcoa consumes around 20% of Victoria’s electricity. The Portland smelter currently emits five times more greenhouse pollution than the industry world average for equivalent aluminium facilities.

      Alcoa is interested in expanding both its Portland smelter and the smaller Point Henry smelter. The expansion could necessitate at least one new power station in Victoria to meet Alcoa’s energy needs. If the new power station is brown-coal fired, this will significantly increase greenhouse emissions.

      Alcoa’s energy usage is heavily subsidised by the Victorian government. The Portland and Point Henry smelters pay roughly $17.50 per MWh below the competitive market price for energy, and the State Electricity Commission of Victoria wipes $120 million from Alcoa’s annual power bill. The expansion itself is likely to be further subsidised in order to entice the company to spend the $600 million required for the project.

      Based on information from the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Victorian Auditor General’s Office, Alcoa’s ‘flexible tariff arrangements’ cost the Victorian government an estimated $200 million each year in the late 1990s. Former Victorian treasurer Alan Stockdale claimed that this “unfairly benefits Alcoa at the expense of other business and household taxpayers in Victoria”.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Because of those government incentives you still have employment at those factories and a viable tax base. Alcoa could always move to another country. They recently closed their plant in Tennessee putting many people out of work and reducing employment for other support companies. The loss cost the state and region a lot more than the minor subsidies that are being paid to keep them in Australia.
        The subsidies give Alcoa an unfair business advantage if other companies are not also subsidized in their countries. The problem is that many countries do subsidize manufacturing operations to draw corporations and jobs to the country.
        Feel grateful you have the plants there to maintain the employment level.
        Think of it as subsidizing your economy rather than a particular company.

    • Sense Seeker says:

      Funny – I didn’t think we’d agree on anything, Scarlet. But I think you are absolutely right that this subsidy stinks.

  5. peterhodges says:

    yah but all that co2 in the past wasn’t man made.

    this time it’s different!

    • Steven says:

      What is the difference between them, man made or not it is still co2, and levels are very low today compared to time in the past. Of course the important point is that co2 levels have little or nothing to do with the temps.

      • sentient says:

        Here’s a link to a good paper Steve:

        Here’s a quote from the paper:

        “In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles no coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state.”

  6. Al Gored says:

    Great ‘big picture’ perspective. Should be the anti-hockey stick icon. If the AGW gang can’t effectively dispute this all their other scary stories are irelevant.

    And this appears to show 150 million year cycles in global temperature. Pardon my ignorance but what do we know about those?

    • Sense Seeker says:

      I am not aware of any automatic cycles, but apparently solar activity and CO2 together explain quite a lot of the temperature changes in the past (

      When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower.

      “Geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth’s history.” (

      • There wasn’t much difference in TOA solar energy during that relatively short period.

      • Mike Davis says:

        If a person is not aware of natural cycles that are obvious in all the historic records, they really need to find a better source of information.
        A good Geology text book or there are many books out now that can walk you through the geological records.
        CO2 does not explain anything in the historic climate records. However temperature changes and biological activity do explain CO2 activity in the system throughout geological history. The minimal human contribution is like a pimple on the A@@ of an elephant.

      • Major Mike says:

        CO2 and temperature are related. When temperature goes up, the sea releases CO2. Then the natural cooling cycle begins, temperature goes down, and CO2 follows as the cooling sea absorbs more. If CO2 was the driver, it would fall, then temperature would fall. It doesn’t work that way. Further, there is no mechanism yet demonstrated outside of following natural warming and cooling that explains why atmospheric CO2 rises or falls. What triggers it’s fluctuations over millions of years? Certainly not man.

    • Al Gored says:

      Thanks for the responses to my question.

  7. Stefan says:

    So what’s the standard rebuttal/Tuttle to this one?

    I’ve heard, “oh but back then things were completely different”, or, “oh but now it is happening much faster and things can’t adapt”,

    but what is the actual “academically respected” justification that they use to reject this one??

    • Paul H says:

      Chris D will probably say it was due to sulfites ( from Dinosaur factories presumably)

      Brendon ( where is he now?) will just call it cherry picking.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I think the article posted above would fall into that category.

      here it is again. interesting read.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Sorry TonyD:
        That is more academic What IF BS. Just the names of the researchers he is quoting makes that a compilation of BS. I did not even go past the first paragraph where the name Trenberth is used. That disqualifies the paper all by itself.

      • Robb says:


        For once I have to agree with you! That was an interesting read.

        I really liked the part about “These cool periods are marked by either low-to-moderate levels of CO2 (<1000 ppm) or no CO2 coverage. Crucially, none of the cool periods are associated with CO2 levels exceeding 1000 ppm.

        According to Droyer, the “hottest year on record” is occuring during one of the “cool periods”.

        Also, I got that the paper finds Temp & CO2 are linked, but I missed the part where he alleges CO2 drives temp.

        Since we all know that as the temp rises, the oceans & melting permafrost release more CO2 into the atmosphere, doesn’t it reason the opposite makes just as much sense?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        Amazing that one citation by “the one that cannot be named” can invalidate the research of easily over a hundred scientists cited in that paper. I had NO IDEA he exerted such a huge influence of all those areas of research. Must be quite a guy. And that he is SO EVIL that even considering anything he says is verboten.
        The rest of your dissection of that BS was devastating.
        glad to know I don’t need to understand all of the mistakes they made.

        • Why do you pretend that you care about the science? No matter how much information is presented to you, the only thing you can accept is what your favourite experts have to say.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I am not sure that your read the same paper I did. I just reread it and it mentions nothing about “the hottest year on record”.
        I think he MAY have been referring to the possibility that we are currently in a geological era of “Ice Age”. Of course Mike might say that is just “what if BS”.

        You might have missed the part where he says CO2 drives temp, because he didn’t say that anywhere. OK I think we all have to order reading glasses here.

        But you raise an interesting potential hypothesis I have never heard suggested before, but related to this the mechanism is staggering. MAYBE temperature IS causing increased CO2 now. Increasing temps after the LIE caused a change in the part of the brain that controls technology development, and was the key factor in humans dumping all those extra gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere!

        Of course maybe I am making too much of that and you can show me the research that shows the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere measured over the last 100 years is not caused by anthropocentric factors.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        PLEASE let me know who my favorite experts are what I accept just on authority. Also show me what scientific evidence you have provided that I have disputed based on other than science.
        I have repeatedly accepted your evidence at face value, and have repeatedly told you what I think you need to do with that information. ( I am trying to avoid using the p**r r****w phrase cause I don’t want to be responsible for you guys getting toasted)

        Steve, since you refuse to post about the HUGE news that disproves ACC from a few days ago, I am starting to think it might be fear of success. Believe me you can handle it!

        • It doesn’t make any difference how much information you are provided. The only thing that might impact you would be a statement from Hansen – which will never happen. Why do you pretend to be interested in the science?

      • Mike Davis says:

        You must have missed my position statements that I made before.
        The globe has been experiencing an Ice Age since year round ice started accumulating on Antarctica. Year round ice is the determining factor that defines an Ice Age. Due to natural long term weather patterns, also known as climate variations or Glacial / Interglacial Cycles the globe experiences trends toward maximum glaciation and trends towards minimum glaciation with short term detours in the opposite direction along the way, such as the period we are experiencing now.
        Warming ALLOWS increased biological activity which produces and uses increased levels of CO2. The human contribution to the yearly cycle may be as much as 6% however that is a WAG based on guess work by the researchers as there is no accurate method of measurement on a global basis.
        Warming increases decay of dead biologic material but also increases the use of the nutrients produced by the decay. Cooling reduces the biologic activity and enhances the storage of nutrients in the soil and oceans. We are currently releasing nutrients into the atmosphere that would not be available for biological growth otherwise.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve another devastating response,.

        Show me ANYWHERE I have said that I think something is true solely because someone said it (excepting people on this blog of course).

        And I am hurt you say I don’t care about the science. I read all the science that is offered here on any postings I look at. I check references and links suggested. What mostly care about IS the science! I have learned quite a bit of science because of coming to this blog, and I thank you for your part in that.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I was talking to Robb, but no matter.

        SO you’re saying that the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 100 years from ~300 to 380 is only 6% from human factors? I had not heard you state that before.

        Then the scientists who think that most of that increase is anthropogenic are just making it up? That seems like an extreme statement even from you, but you must have something to back that up.

        Everything else you say in the post I have no disagreement about, And I am not aware of any climate scientists that would disagree with that either.

  8. Latitude says:

    I’ve always wondered about that chart.
    Just looking at that, and nothing else, you would think the earth’s average temperature should be 22C.

  9. Glen Shevlin says:

    A good sized part of the problem with this whole clusterf*** is people from all sides taking a piece of data and extrapolating the birth of the universe from it. Until we get to the level of the Arisians that is not going to work. Just as an example the subject of this thread,

    From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade

    That fact is taken in isolation, by itself all on its lonely… you get the drift of the message. The other side does exactly the same thing with their data extrapolations.
    What are the reasons ( not the plural) for a CO2 drop and a temp increase? Do we know? If not trumpeting this as a “fact ” is just as bad as saying if CO2 gets over 350PPM ( or whatever this weeks total is) Manhatten will drown. The isolated facts are just that isolated facts. Take the facts and develope a thesis from it. Test your thesis examine the data and compare it to your original idea. Do they match? are their differences.

    Wash rinse repeat until you determine

    a) Your thesis is full of s***
    b) Hey you are actually onto something.
    If a) find another thesis to beat to death
    If b) Organize your thoughts and publish them and then take your lumps defending it.

    There used to be a name for this we called it

    The Scientific Method

    • Tony Duncan says:


      you have now witnessed one of Steve’s devastating comebacks.

      You don’t seem to understand that that he and others here have explanations for every objection you could come up with. They just refuse to put it all to together and get it published in peer reviewed journals.

      • 10 ppm will send the Earth over a tipping point, but there is no reason to expect that 1000 ppm will have any impact on temperature.

        The climate models say so, just close your eyes and hide.

      • Al Gored says:

        Tony Duncan says:

        “They just refuse to put it all to together and get it published in peer reviewed journals.”

        The problem has been, and still is, that too many of the established “peer reviewed journals” have AGW advocates as gatekeepers and what they publish is not dependent on their actual scientific merit but rather on whether it fits their predetermined conclusion. Someone called them ‘pal reviewed’ journals, and that sums it up.

        This is already beginning to change.

        In the meantime, the AGW gang has no problem using anything that fits their mantra whether it is peer reviewed or not… like this ‘hottest year’ garbage.

    • Mike Davis says:

      In a world where over exaggeration is the standard method of communicating a make believe problem, Over exaggeration is required as a method to combat by showing the absurd.
      The only thing this thread shows is that CO2 has not played a part in warming or cooling during geological history and there is little or no direct connection between the two.
      I see no need to determine actual causes for CO2 concentrations many millions of years ago. There is a need to show the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 at any time in geological history because that falsifies the AGW claims and displays one of the four broken legs the IPCC is founded on.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I have to hand to to Glenn. And I owe him an apology.
        He just got Mike to explain why there is no interest in getting all this proof of fraud in peer review journals.
        Over exaggeration is rather frowned upon in the peer review process.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Really! That is what is coming out of the peer reviewed journals almost constantly where Climatology is concerned. In Science and Nature publications it seems that to have anything published it needs to be related to ACC and also lead to disastrous results if no immediate steps are taken to combat the issue.
        The problem is not in finding papers that do not over exaggerate but finding those that do not. Publishing has become a part of the grant application process so the need for additional research into a nonexistent problem must be outlined in the paper that is published. Without a need for further research the publishers and reviewers would be promoting a reduction in future work for the specific field.
        The more exaggeration the easier to publish. Just look at the Hockey Stick and offspring as an example.

  10. maguro says:

    New drinking game: One shot each time Tony Duncan posts something about “peer reviewed journals”.

  11. Major Mike says:

    I have seen hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that establish such phenomena as a global Medieval Warm Period, a much warmer than present Holocene Optimum, and at least four other periods of equal or greater warming in the past 11,000 years. Arrayed against that is the discredited “hockey stick” of Mann et al, which among many shortcomings attempts to hide the divergence between what the trees are supposedly telling us compared to modern instument records. Can you have it both ways? Tree rings prove there was no Medieval Warm Period, but don’t show current warming? Concerning the comments about CO2 levels, 3% is produced by human activity, and 97% by the natural carbon cycle, which includes decaying plant material and the oceans. In terms of the nonexistent “greenhouse effect”, water vapor contributes roughly 95% of atmospheric warming as the atmosphere acts as an air conditioner cooling and warming the Earth by a combination of thermodynamics and radiation. CO2 is an insignificant trace gas, incapable of aborbing heat energy and reradiating it towards an area of greater energy concentration, the Earth. Simply, a cooler body cannot warm a warmer one. All of these arguements are like counting the number of Angels who can dance on the head of a pin, without first proving the existence of Angels.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      a lot of posts recently that show that ACC is a total fraud.
      Mike is convinced that Nature and Science have thrown out the peer review process in favor of only printing articles that support ACC. Yet to do so they have to be rejecting papers that are actually valid – that show ACC to be a scam.
      That means they MUST be part of a conspiracy. I am called an idiot because I don’t see how obvious it is, Yet when I present this point that ALL these other scientists must see it also, somehow they are not engaged in concerted fraud and a conspiracy.
      I did not realize I was so supposed to be more aware and intelligent than the editors of Nature and Science.

      • Your logic goes as follows :

        “I see that the emperor doesn’t have any clothes on, but can’t accept it until an official tells me he has no clothes on.”

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I have gone over how the “emperor has no clothes” analogy has very limited relevance in this situation.
        But no never reply to my specific analysis of your not very accurate analogies. You just keep using them.
        And you have not answered any of my above questions that might give any credence to your assertions that I just accept what any particular group of scientists say just on their word. Please show me any place on this blog where I have relied solely on the word of someone regarding a scientific issue.

        You see on the issue of invading Iraq, I was competent to assess the evidence from both sides. I DID make a mistake in questioning my conclusion when Powell made his speech to the UN. I had thought he had enough integrity not to spew outright lies throughout an entire presentation with the whole world watching. But then the truth slowly came out, and I realized my initial judgements of the evidence were valid.

        In this case I do not have the scientific or mathematical knowledge to assess all the information in every field of science involved in climate change. SO I have to take SOME of my reasoning from experts who DO have that knowledge.
        I read blogs and opinions from all over the map regarding climate change. I listen to arguments and counter arguments and base my conclusions on the parts I DO understand (as I am not a complete illiterate with regards to science).

        But to use your flawed analogy. I am listening to a group of people yelling at the top of their lungs that the emperor has no clothes, and sometimes they say make sense, and sometimes what they say is utter garbage. They are constantly insulting to me, and NEVER admit that ANYTHING they say is wrong, no matter how immaterial it is to the question at hand. They also never criticize anything anyone says on this blog as long as they are saying the emperor has no clothes
        I am also listening to a group of people who have quite varied ideas of what is happening, and who are nothing like how they are described by the first group, but they all think the emperor has clothes to one degree or another. They discuss things with me and explain their understanding, while being clear about specific caveats. they are never insulting. they also question the ideas of people that agree with them about what kind of clothes or how revealing they are.
        Now that I have cleared that up, can we get back to getting this clear evidence of fraud into the scientific literature? Like this graph and how it shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

      • I am providing tons of raw data which you see with your own eyes, you don’t dispute the validity, yet you refuse to believe until the emperor tells you it is true.

        Your repetitious denials don’t change a thing.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        odd choice of words.

        “you don’t dispute the validity, yet you refuse to believe until the emperor tells you it is true.”
        “Your repetitious denials don’t change a thing.”

        I really hate to say this to you. But I don’t actually believe you are an unbiased source of information regarding this question.

        I have read about 20 different reasons for why ACC CAN’T be correct theoretically on this blog. Some of them are mutually exclusive. You have never corrected any comment that attacks ACC regardless of how ridiculous it is. You have posted hundreds of things that are totally irrelevant or that I know to be incomplete, as if they were the whole truth. You have refused to admit you were wrong about any issue, even when I have gone to great lengths to make it absolutely unambiguous. Even when the issue was totally meaningless. Case in point the whole coral being all killed in Bikini Atol. You attacked me as a complete idiot, when all I did was bring up a question. It looked very much like you could not accept the idea about me being right about ANYTHING. That indicates a serious psychological dysfunction and it makes it extremely difficult to trust that you have any interest in the truth unless it means that you are right.

        You repeatedly ignore the key elements of comments that I post and just focus on the parts that you can use to attack the point that you want.
        Your logic about the lack of conspiracy is totally at odds with the facts that you and others present on this site.

        You constantly make assertions as if they were true and don’t back them up. Case in point the comment I am responding to right now. You just repeat that I am refusing to see the emperor has no clothes, when I have repeatedly explained to you why that is not the case, both in this post and in others.

        You refuse to see when YOU have no clothes on, and you viciously attack anyone who points it out to you.

        Now all these reasons not to just blindly accept everything you say does not mean you are wrong about everything. it does not mean you are wrong about ACC being wrong.
        But you see, all your assertions and facts are just on this blog. the reason I keep talking about the peer review process is because it was specifically set up so that science wouldn’t be decided by who had the most influential “blog”, or who could be most bombastic.
        When all your information is presented in a context where other scientists can contest your assertions and give their explanations
        and then you can revise or show where they are wrong, and even different OTHER scientists concur with your science, why then I will accept everything that you say that is actually true.
        Otherwise I am just accepting your authority about issues that I do not have the competence to make judgments on.

        But I do leaner things from coming to this site, and that is greatly appreciated.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        and you just reconfirmed everything I have said in these posts.

        I COME to this site because I think for myself. I do not ignore information because of the source.

        still very intrigued why you didn’t mention the really big news about climate change science this week.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        even more confirmation. I make no appeals to authority. I make judgements based on what experts tell me on issues where I don’t have the expertise to make those judgments on my own. There is a huge difference

        why are you so reticent about that major news story about ACC?
        I have never seen you miss something of this importance.

        But you can’t ask can you? You think it would show some kind of weakness. You don’t know what I am talking about so you are scared that I am setting some kind of trap.

        maybe you did bring it up and I didn’t notice.

        • Don’t come to a site titled “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” with your appeals to authority. I provide a ton of information and you are incapable of understanding it.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        you provide a ton of information, and some of it is irrelevant or incomplete, and I do not have the expertise of time to see how accurate that information is.
        If it is all accurate then there is no way that ACC can survive for more than a very short time because the tens of thousands of honest scientists will no allow the scientific establishment to perpetrate the largest fraud in scientific history.

        here is an analogy. Let’s say Dyson came out and said that Quantum mechanics was a scam. and he presented all sorts of equations that showed the flaws. I have a general knowledge of physics and a vague understanding of quantum mechanics. He could tell me over and over again that he had supplied the proof and I was just listening to the scammers by not accepting his perfectly clear explanations and mathematical proofs. he then went on to show me why all the technology and experiments that were based on QM had the results they did and worked the way they do, using this other theory.
        But there were other scientists who insisted Dyson was Batshit crazy and presented OTHER equations and explanations and insisted that they were right.
        I guess I should immediately drop all that i am doing and spend the next 8 years to understand what they are both talking about.

        you have provided evidence that clearly shows fraud and conspiracy. there ARE people that can assess that information fairly in the peer review process. I do not as yet see this being born out.
        I have read climate gate and have seen the way the information in it is distorted to present a reality that is clearly distorted. Hide the decline is clearly not fraud, yet it is still touted as such. the glacier-gate was clearly a mistake, yet it is still touted as fraud.
        I have seen numerous claims against ACC that have been clearly shown to be false.

        You are clearly not interested in the truth, but ONLY in showing ACC is wrong.

        I am pretty certaint hat there are scientist that are honest in the climate related fields. I just listened to a podcast from a climate scientist a MIT who vey clearly explained why he had been skeptical until a few years ago, but the overwhelming nature of the evidence supporting ACC had recently convinced him. I would like to see what his explanations are you all your evidence. that is NOT appeal to authority, that is wanting a full explanation of the issues.
        If he was a skeptic before did he come to support ACC because of the grant money? If so that means he is engaged in conscious fraud. I would need to see evidence that people like this who are experts have decided to forego science and engage in fraud just to get grant money.

        and you STILL are too scared to ask me what the new info is on climate change? Someone else might call you a name but that would be an ad hominem attack and you know I disapprove of that. Since it indicates a lack of interest in substance.

  12. JAE says:

    And what does this say about the “atmospheric greenhouse effect?”

  13. For a considerable time I have been asking where is the proof of global warming? Where are the facts and figures ? To date all I get is opinion or guesses . Get your act together and provide facts and figures which are believable .

  14. Geez, you’d think a “scientist” could do undergraduate math. Maybe not, these days.
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  15. Mike says:

    If it was scam it would have been stopped. Scams and hoaxes tend to collapse quickly once they are exposed. That climatology has not collapsed, and that the evidence for GHG induce climate change continues to grow, suggests the possibility that that mainstream scientists are basically correct and the right wing bloggers are not.

  16. Mike Davis says:

    You see 20 different reasons why some consider ACC to be falsified. That is a low ball figure there could be 200 or even 2000 exclusive observations that falsify ACC.
    Actually the ACC supporters falsify ACC with their own claims that most every weather event is consistent with ACC.
    Just your various claims are evidence that ACC is falsified.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      and what claims might those be?
      I wrote 20 because I didn’t want to be accused of exaggerating and then having to spend hours reading all the posts on this blog to support my “claim”

      the key point was that some of those reasons are mutually exclusive.

      I do not doubt that ACC supporters distort and make up stuff so that it fits their idea of the theory. That is why I am concerned for the actual science, not what “supporters” say.

      • Mike Davis says:

        When you finally find some ACTUAL SCIENCE that supports the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change so called THEORY please share it!
        Catastrophic weather happens from time to time in many regions around the globe throughout history, written and geological.
        Climate Change is a natural process!
        Humans are responsible for changes in regional weather patterns!
        Catastrophic Climate Change would be represented by a return to Maximum Glaciation or a warming beyond that which was experienced before the current Ice Age started about 40 Million years ago.
        Cooling is detrimental to biological activity while warming promotes biological activity. Warming reduces weather extremes while cooling trends promote weather extremes as weather patterns are determined by temperature differences. ( That is only based on observations of weather patterns).

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Once again when you actually say stuff. I agree with most of what you write. As would just about every climate scientist.

        I have presented you with some of the evidence that climate scientists say are unique signals of ACC. You contend that they are not. here is the first one I found.
        You will of course have explanations why this is a load of crap, but are there rebuttals to your explanations?
        If there are none, then show me where in the peer reviewed science that that is the case. Or show me the evidence of fraud that peer reviewed journals will not publish it.
        That is how it works in science Mike.
        I do not just take on authority what you say because you are so insistent it is correct. and I do not accept on your authority that the peer review process is so corrupted that the information you know is kept out of the established forums for determining accuracy, unless there is a massive conspiracy of conscious fraud which you seem to be saying doesn’t exist.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Their first proclamation of unprecedented warming during the last 30 or 40 years is falsified in many other studies about historical temperature changes.
        1 for 1
        Models do not accurately replicate historical events and many adjustments will give the same results. So by picking the desired forcings they arrive at the desired results.
        2 for 2
        The CO2 levels are questionable at best and need a lot more research. They also left out natural contributions the global CO2 concentrations. The use of data from 2001 makes that claim outdated.
        3 for 3
        Fingerprint 1 is not there.
        How old is this report from that political activist group?
        Fingerprint 2 is not there either
        Fingerprint 3 is about surface temperatures over the last 100 years that are so corrupted they are worthless.
        You really need to find something more recent than 2006 because that is a propaganda piece based on Pathological science to feed the true believers of ACC.
        Every claim in that has been shown to be fabricated.
        Your supporting paper struck out!

      • Mike Davis says:

        The primary reason I reply to your claims is to provide a different perspective. Most of what I claim can be found in research papers at many places on the web.
        I do not expect to deprogram you from your faith. I was involved in that type of thing in the 70s for people that had been brainwashed by fanatical cults. You need to find your own answers!
        By the way: UCS is a political activist group on par with Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. They took the name Union of concerned scientists because it sounded impressive! I guess it worked on you!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        and you responded exactly as I predicted. I told you this was the first one found. I just used it to see if you would confirm my point
        And you do not address the point of my comment, as you never do. there is no reason for me to believe that you are interested in the truth, only in showing ACC to be false.

        you do not present peer reviewed papers that support your assertions.

        your first “strike” is certainly disputed. You do not address the specific signature that they are talking about. The fact that there have been other periods with large temperature changes has to be connected to a cause. there is a cause for the recent change in CO2. You deny that. there are historical causes that are amply discussed in the scientific literature, and most scientists do not see any evidence for those causes being sufficient for the current warming.
        So at best this ia a foul ball.

        #2 Once again you do not discuss their specific designation of the “signature”. you just assert that the models are meaningless and give the desired results and ONLY desired results are accepted. That implies conscious fraud, as there are many models and they have evolved considerable in 30 years, from many different sources and you give no evidence of that. So while this is certainly possible it is not a strike either.

        #3 once again you ignore the “signature” nature of the claim and just make an assertion of CO2 level uncertainty. a factor that you say was ignored and the fact that the data is not recent, without showing how that invalidates the data. then you make more assertions as absolutes, and you assert that eve claim has ben shown to be fabricated. So show me in the peer review literature where that fabrication is proven ( I don’t count this blog as genuinely peer reviewed, though essentially you are all peers on this blog, so I might be being a bit picky).
        #3 is also not a strike.

        So here we are. You know much more about these issues than I do, and yet just on logical grounds, until you provide the evidence I require, you do not make your case. And of course you will insist that I just refuse to believe the truth that is so obvious to everyone else that is not caught in this non conspiracy religion.

        You can demand all you want that I believe your evidence, but until I see if there are any rebuttals to your evidence I am not going to just believe you because you get so mad at me for being stupid.
        So are there any rebuttals to theta points you just made?

  17. jrwakefield says:

    Here is a question to ponder.

    If CO2 levels have been dropping, the cause being from organic material being turned into petroleum and carbonate rock, does this mean in the future that CO2 drops so low that plants starve and all life goes extinct? If this natural sequestration of carbon is what is happening and that the future, aren’t we saving the planet by liberating more CO2?

    • Mike Davis says:

      WELL! YES!!!!!
      However the so called research into recent CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were a massive misuse of funds that provided results that might be useful for someone living at those locations where the measurements were made.
      In the real world CO2 concentrations vary with the seasons and are not constant in any way. Natural geological processes and biological processes that have been going on for millions and billions of years determine the CO2 concentration and the natural struggle for survival continues.

      This brings up the fallacy of living in harmony with Nature because there is no Harmony in nature as Nature is a struggle for survival for all biological species. If there was Harmony in Nature then Evolution would be falsified and new species would not be found because the original species would still exist in a harmonious natural environment. There would be no predators and humans would not exist as we are a product of the struggle for survival and all technological advances are also a result of that struggle with nature.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        this is what I am talking about. I Do know something about evolution and your extraneous “harmony in nature” argument is just bizarre and unrelated to any real issue except maybe to a 16 year old hippie girl who is handing our flowers and knows nothing about evolution. I put that in the category of “straw elephant”
        You supply the correct information that there are various processes that cause CO2 to increase or decrease, but then you actually support Jrwakefields contention that if we do nothing to stop the precipitous decline in CO2 it could lead to the extinction on all life on this planet? Tell me where is your evidence for THAT happening?
        That is more alarmist than anything I have ever read on the “warmest” side. It makes lovelock look like a James Inhofe.

        Why can’t you just say “Actually it is quite unlikely that CO2 levels would decrease much more, as they never have in the past, and they have been pretty stable for the last few hundred thousand years, but nobody knows for sure.

        You imply in this post that there has NOT been an increase in global CO2 because CO2 concentrations fluctuate and are different in different areas. So are you suggesting that the CO2 readings from Mauna Loa do NOT show that there is a very significant global increase, and that that is NOT confirmed by many other detectors located throughout the world? If we were discussing 1920 I might agree with you. Unless of course the failure of the OCO launch was a conspiracy to keep the truth about CO2 concentrations from us.

        But in spite of this confirmation of my contention that you will support ANYTHING anyone says that is against ACC, that does not logically mean you are wrong about the important bits.
        And I always enjoy being surprised by posts like this

      • Mike Davis says:

        I guess you missed the proclamations by the Sierra Club and The union of Concerned Scientists along with Greenpeace, WWF and how many other NGO fighting the GOOD fight for people to live in harmony with nature to stop the destruction of Mother Earth!
        According to so called scientific experts regarding CO2 it was decreasing before we came along to disturb the ecological balance and started emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere. I realize that we are contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere but the measurements at the current LOCATIONS (Pluarl) are good for those locations but used as a proxy for global concentrations just as the surface temperature records being used are not real temperature records but proxies that are similar to temperature records if those actually existed, which they do not or they would not have to fill in such a large area by extrapolation (WAG).
        Personally I thing the attempts to measure CO2 concentrations are BS and a wast of funds.
        Climate research should be looking to better explain natural weather so they can find out if some other factor is taking place. Throwing out COP2 or even human released particulates as primary causes of weather changes is HOG WASH when the weather we are experiencing is within expected bounds as displayed in the historic records. There are regions of the globe that can warm by 10 C and still be within bounds and provide the type of climate that was experienced earlier in this interglacial. When they start uncovering 120 thousand year old trees from under glaciers then I will think the globe is warming beyond what is expected for this interglacial.
        When sea levels match those of the Eemian then it might be time to look at other climate forcings besides natural ones.

  18. AndyKn says:

    So because something’s never happened before it can’t happen now even though the circumstances are different? Sceptic logic at it’s finest.

    • Mike Davis says:

      Anything is possible and a meteorite might strike your house any time. But that has happened before. There is always an earthquake, Tidal Wave. How are circumstances so very different today than thousands or millions of years ago.
      Are we expecting Extinction Level Event number 7 or something. Humans adapt and that is what got them through the last glacial maximum and periods that were warmer and colder than today.
      What exactly is supposed to happen that has never happened before?
      You need a bomb shelter because 2012 is right around the corner and you only have a little over a year to prepare. Six months worth of food and water should see you and your family through. I believe if you go to ground the middle of April you will miss the worst of the disruption but I would not wait much longer as our calendar is not that precise! If you can store a years worth of supplies you would be safer going to ground in February 2012!

  19. Tony Duncan says:


    I just found this great site that describes the ACC in almost exactly the way you have described it in one of your analogies
    Here I was on your case saying there were not enough parallels between continental drift theory and ACC, but when I looked a that evidence it is AMAZINGlY similar. It is pretty amazing how it is almost exactly the same situation.

    My apologies

  20. Mike Davis says:

    I am going to make one more response to take this thread over the century mark!

    • peterhodges says:

      thread after thread

      tony keeps repeating the same tired arguments

      against the same moot points

      which are not points that represent anyones opinion.

      hey tony….


  21. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    December 13, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    In this case I do not have the scientific or mathematical knowledge to assess all the information in every field of science involved in climate change.

    The question is not of omniscience. It is on basic comprehension. You have displayed a lack of the latter, but sure would like us to believe in the former. So we go back to square 1. State the null hypothesis. If you start there, you may be on your way to understanding the issue and what both sides are trying to tell you.

    If not, it will not surprise me as your ego does seem to interfere with your judgement.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      fascinating all this talk of my being omniscient or knowing everything or thinking I know better than everyone else.
      I would like to see a comment where I wrote anything that indicated that.

      I like to think of myself as humble, willing to admit my ignorance and open to different points of view. I have repeatedly said I have learned a lot here, and have even on occasion admitted making a mistake (in spite of the crushing blow to my ego). I am still waiting to see if anyone can find the average temp for Oct Nov, in Brattleboro, Vt compared to this years temps so I can apologize to Steve about that issue.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        You did not answer the basic question. Are you now saying it is beneath you to answer such basic questions?

        A lot of hooie with no substance. You can think you are the grand poobah of the moose lodge if you want, that is not the issue, now is it?

      • Tony Duncan says:


        what basic question was that? that COs cannot possibly cause any significant warming because it’s effect decreases logarithmically?
        you don;t tell me what basic question I did not answer so i will answer that one.
        The answer is that the fraud and conspiracy is eve BIGGER than you guys understand because even Lindzen Michaels and spencer seem to agree with the physics of ACC.
        the question comes in with the climate sensitivity. there are numerous factors related to that and they have nothing to do with the graphs Peter provided.
        Even HE says that CO2 can cause temp increase. This gas that has only increased .001% of the atmospheric total. Isn’t that an insane assertion from Peter? Isn’t he a warmest too? just not an alarmist?
        and do you have ANY idea what I believe about climate science. Why don’t you tell me or show me the outrageous alarmist things I have said about ACC in any of Steve’s posts.

  22. PhilJourdan says:

    Sorry, only the first sentence is Tony’s. The italic tag did not take.

  23. PhilJourdan says:

    Sense Seeker says:
    December 14, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Seems you are the only denialist around here. Or are you in the habit of calling all gays, faggots – and all blacks, niggers? You must make a lot of friends in the linen business.

  24. George says:

    I’m more of a skeptic on co2 forcing, but the graph that is provided on the geologic history of co2 doen’t provide for an error of margin. This one does.

  25. George says:


    Maybe I should learn how to spell correctly.
    Also, I would like to get the opinion from some on solar output during the time period where Steven is pointing and it’s relationship with co2 and global temps. AGWists would argue that a weaker sun earlier in geologic history could have offset high co2 levels.

    “Friday, 12 March, 2010
    CO2 levels during the late Ordovician
    One argument used against the warming effect of carbon dioxide is that millions of years ago, CO2 levels were higher during periods where large glaciers formed over the Earth’s poles. This argument fails to take into account that solar output was also lower during these periods. The combined effect of sun and CO2 show good correlation with climate (Royer 2006). The one period that until recently puzzled paleoclimatologists was the late Ordovician, around 444 million years ago. At this time, CO2 levels were very high, around 5600 parts per million (in contrast, current CO2 levels are 389 parts per million). However, glaciers were so far-reaching during the late Ordovician, it coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth history. How did glaciation occur with such high CO2 levels? Recent data has revealed CO2 levels at the time of the late Ordovician ice age were not that high after all.

    Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2 from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation – the growing of ice sheets.

    Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 – CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

    Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”

    Then again:

    “Early Earth stayed warm because its ocean absorbed more sunlight; greenhouse gases were not involved, Stanford researchers say”

  26. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    December 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    what basic question was that? that COs cannot possibly cause any significant warming because it’s effect decreases logarithmically?
    you don;t tell me what basic question I did not answer so i will answer that one.

    The one asked – not the one YOU wanted asked.

    What is the null hypothesis?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Dear Phil,

      I am glad that you are willing to give me an education in philosophy of science.
      Hmmm. what is the null hypothesis?
      I would guess related to this post it would be that CO2 has no effect on the energy balance of the planet.
      I have read some claims on this site that it is physically impossible for CO2 to have any effect. Peterhodges just wrote on one of these posts that he believes it might have an effect of maybe 1°C /doubling. Mike has stated that he thinks there could be an effect, but he is convinced that natural variability overwhelms any possible effect.
      The vast majority of scientists believe that increasing CO2 can have a major effect in the 2-4°/doubling range.
      there have been numerous experiments that show the absorption of radiation and the ways CO2 reacts to that that indicate to most scientists that there is no question that CO2 does absorb radiation from the earth and return some of it back to the earth as radiation and also as thermal energy.

      Since you still aren’t being clear, I guess that this comment will reinforce some aspect of your insistence that I am totally clueless about this issue, or that I am avoiding being honest in some way.

      • Did you interview “the vast majority of scientists?” Do you know anyone who has?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Dear Sweet Tony

        Wrong. Do you care to “guess” again, or do you want one of the big boys to tell you?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Well it is the Vast majority of scientists who claim to know that there is a contribution. That VAST majority may be the authors of the papers used by the IPCC as those with a different point of view were not quoted.
        Even if a number can be placed on CO2’s effect there remains the counter effect of natural climate factors that maintain the overall weather patterns on the earth. Without the natural long term regional weather patterns where I live today would have similar weather to Southern Nevada as they are both at the same latitude and about the same distance from the coast. Natural long term weather patterns give me an average annual rain fall of over 20 inches of rain and Southern Nevada 3 to 4 inches. The humidity is higher here and the weather is milder overall although colder.
        I think your vast majority of scientists are really a minority as the Majority usually remains silent.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve and mike you must be right.
        if only there were associations or societies of scientists that presented the prevailing thinking of the science involved, we could use that as a proxy.
        of course if there WERE such groups and they were part of this vast fraud, then the members of those organizations might be interested in politely discussing with them this vast fraud, since it could have a negative impact on the validity of science in general.

  27. Tony Duncan says:

    I just got this email, and I rushed to open it, since I was sure that with all the fraud being documented on climate change this email would be full of confirmations.
    sadly, there was no mention of climate change in any of the top ten. I guess 11-37 were all climate related, and they just didn’t make the cut.

  28. Matzpen says:

    I just followed the link to where this image came from and its a right-wing website called “Frontiers of Freedom.” Excuse me if I don’t consider that a credible scientific source

  29. Oakden Wolf says:

    OK, Goddard.

    That graphic has been circulating a long time, and it doesn’t say what you think it says. You wrote:

    “From 150 million years ago to 65 million years ago, CO2 levels decreased by 1000 ppm. During that same period, temperatures rose by 7 degrees Centigrade.”

    That’s not what the graph shows. It shows a dip in temperature at the end of the Jurassic (a stage that happens to be called the Tithonian) and then an increase at the beginning of the Cretaceous, a stage that happens to be called the Berriasian). Then temperatures remain fairly stable throughout the rest of the Cretaceous. They did not rise for most of the Cretaceous (at least according to this crude graph). Also note that anoxic bottom conditions preserved organic-rich sediments, indicating oceans with little vertical mixing. It took decreasing sea level at the latest stages of the Cretaceous to establish more modern-type climate on the continents.

    What happened at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary does not seem to have been as profound as either the Permo-Triassic or the well-known K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary, both of which are characterized by mass extinctions. So that’s why the Jurassic/Cretaceous is simply a system boundary and not an era boundary — it was less dramatic. But still, something had to be happening. So I tried briefly to figure out what was supposedly happening then.

    Here’s what I found:

    During the Jurassic and Cretaceous, global sea level rose again (Figure 5.1), presumably associated with increased sea-floor spreading as Pangea began to break up.

    The elevated sea level may have created a near transglobal equatorial seaway
    (called the Tethys Sea), flooding large parts of western Europe, North Africa
    and North America, bringing considerable warmth and moisture to low latitude
    regions. There is also considerable geological evidence for warmer temperatures
    in higher latitudes during the mid-Cretaceous (e.g. Barron, 1983). From oxygen
    isotope records, Savin (1977) has indicated that deep water temperatures
    at 100Ma may have been as high as 20 deg C. Figure 5.5 illustrates the comparison
    between present day surface temperatures and those during the Cretaceous
    estimated empirically.

    This study documents major changes in abundance and composition of calcareous nannofossil assemblages across the J–K boundary transition. Nannoliths such as
    Nannoconus spp., Conusphaera spp. and Polycostella spp. show the most marked fluctuations in abundance. The appearance and increase in abundance of these taxa
    was probably caused by drier atmospheric conditions from the middle Tithonian onwards that led to the decrease in continental weathering and runoff and diminished
    the nutrient fluxes from the continents, lowering the fertility of surface waters. High abundances of presumably warm water and oligotrophic taxa such as Nannoconus
    spp. and Conusphaera spp. correlate with low d18O and d13C values suggesting fairly similar ecological affinities. The shift in abundance between Conusphaera spp. and Nannoconus spp. might have been triggered by a competition to occupy the same niche.

    The minor cooling at the middle Tithonian/late Tithonian boundary associated with a conspicuous increase in abundances of Polycostella spp. recorded in cores 95R and 96R could have been the cause that led to the demise of the “Conusphaera world” and the onset of the “Nannoconus world”. The increase in abundance of robust nannoliths such as Conusphaera spp., Polycostella spp. and Nannoconus spp. corresponds to higher CaCO3 contents. The evolution of these robust taxa had a major effect on the burial and cycling of carbonate in the oceans.

    The d18O record is controlled by temperature and the oxygen isotopic composition of seawater (resulting from the combination of changes in salinity and ice volume).
    If we assume that the Tithonian–Berriasian transition was an ice-free world or characterized by small or ephemeral ice caps [55], a DT decrease of approximately
    4–6 8C (1 8C per 0.25x [56]) is recorded in cores 96R through 95R in the late Tithonian. Consequently, a temperature increase of about 4.8C is calculated across the
    Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary and into the Berriasian. Because such large temperature changes are difficult to explain, a decrease in salinity likely explains part of the apparent warming signal. Changes in paleocirculation of Atlantic water masses may account to some extent for these temperature and salinity variations. In particular, the final opening of the Atlantic-Pacific gateway during magnetic chron CM 19 [57] played a crucial role as suggested by Bornemann et al. [12]. The early Atlantic
    Ocean is generally viewed to be highly saline and is interpreted to be an important source of intermediate or deep-waters to the Pacific after the Atlantic-Pacific gate-
    way was open [58,59]. Enhanced mixing of Atlantic saline waters with lower salinity Pacific waters may thereby have contributed to the shift observed in the d18O values, which coincides with the rise of nannoconids. Moreover, the opening of this gateway may have established a circum-equatorial current system [60], which possibly had a major impact on the circulation pattern of the early Atlantic.”

    Note the following, which I repeat for emphasis:

    “If we assume that the Tithonian–Berriasian transition was an ice-free world or characterized by small or ephemeral ice caps [55], a DT decrease of approximately
    4–6.8C (1.8C per 0.25x [56]) is recorded in cores 96R through 95R in the late Tithonian. Consequently, a temperature increase of about 4.8C is calculated across the
    Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary and into the Berriasian.”

    which is subsequently followed by a set of explanatory scenarios.

    What the above illustrates is that a simple question based on a simplistic interpretation of a simplified graph does not get at the underlying scientific issues or understanding. The graph does not hint at a multitude of geologic and geo-oceanic processes. Comparing climate change spanning hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years invokes processes such as erosion and weathering, tectonic uplift, seafloor sediment subduction, ice cap and ice sheet advance and retreat, changes in oceanic circulation, large shifts in carbon reservoirs — and I’m certain there’s more. Paleoclimate modelers strive to determine the governing factors in global climate changes on these scales. To compare the current situation with what was happening back then, when giant continental landmasses nothing like the shape of the world today were breaking up, and there were vast expanses of shallow inland seas due to higher sea levels that have no modern analogues — well, it’s simply fallacious. No one should bother to try to answer your rhetorical question because it is futile to do so.

Leave a Reply