JohnS

Great answers, this is exactly what I need. Thanks!

Ah! This is good. My next question is, why would cell phone devices break some electronics: In hospitals they affect ventilators which use no signals or communication transmissions. Pacemakers are another example. PMs sends electronic impulses to the heart via wires so how could the radiofrequency energy emitted from cell phones affect them... but not the circuitry of a microchip? Possibly a virtue of a semiconductor? Thanks for the answer guys, BTW.

If someone could somehow flood the frequencies of the EM spectrum with enough interference to prevent cell phones, radios and satellite signals to stop working... is it possible that other electronics could still work? (such as a computer on a hard line connected to the internet or a digital watch)

If I'm being manipulated, it's coming from the federal government. The White House Climate change expenditures report from 2014 quotes $2.5B, half of it goes to NASA. Before 2014, a total of $77B of fed money went (mostly) to subsidized green technologies, climate adaptation from 2008 to 2013 so $2.5B isn't a lot. Note, none of this money goes to universities whom are funded from state budgets (as opposed to federal). It's adds up to a lot of money.

I started this topic and the chart showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature/sea level were the debunks I was looking for. Also pwagen's point about human influence being "abrupt" (in geologic time) resonates with me. I'm not a scientist but I wanted to understand climate change but was thoroughly impressed with what I found. I read the IPCC 2015 report and there wasn't any pre-industrial data for context which is why I started this thread. As an instrument of communication it was so poorly written (no context) I thought I smelled a rat. I mean, with $2.5B (yearly) of tax money going into climate change, you couldn't blame me for suspecting that people were willing to omit controvertible data to keep their job. That's me being cynical. Does anyone know if there is something that's considered "canon" for climate change? I'm looking for something comprehensive, written for the laity and regarded by scientists as the "Harvard Law Review" or climate change. What also makes it difficult is people get so bent out of shape over this over-politicized topic, so non-scientists have to sift through all tons of quackery to find the real data. Again, thanks, gang for the pointers.

The chart in your youtube movie is exactly what I'm talking about. "Zooming in" to values between 200 and 400 ppm is deceptive because the CO2 levels appear unprecedented. CO2 was higher in the middle Cenozoic and the Ordovician and there was plenty of ice, no? So I just don't understand how an extra 100 ppm could melt the ice caps today. The context I'm talking about is illustrated in the charts below. The first link has a good point about slow vs abrupt change but the abrupt changes it mentions in the Permian, Triassic and mid-Cambrian periods were orders of magnitude bigger than the one degree Celsius change we've had in the past 200 years. Ah! But the second link has the chart showing what I'm looking for: This shows a close relationship between temperature and CO2 levels. That's the smoking gun I needed to debunk the theory that rules out natural factors as the cause of our imminent climate change. Thanks, guys.

The connection I'm attempting to show is how sea level/temperature and CO2 is constantly changing -- naturally (hence the title, Natural Climate Change) instead of assuming it's all human-made because we're looking at unreasonably short timelines (hundreds of years) with only fractional increase in CO2, a gas which plants thrive on and convert to oxygen. Effects aren't mutually exclusive but seeing the a x10 factor in fluctuations during the Mesozoic makes me think we're thinking too small. We are adding CO2, but historically, it's nothing like the amount of CO2 Earth has seen in the past. The shorter the timeline, the scarier the change seems which is annoying because when scientists are talking about Earth, they ought to pull large samples for sense of perspective. The data is fine, what we're missing is a sense of context. No, glaciers melt and seas rise. I totally agree with your last statement. My point is that's not happening; scientists aren't publishing books and articles about climate change with any sense of context -- purposefully focusing only on the past 200 years without a frame of reference (pre-human data) make our tepid CO2 contribution unprecidented and that's sloppy and, frankly, misleading. This is the crux of my point and better said. Scientists have had the second and third points for decades. They've had them since the Vail and Haq sea-level studies of the 1970s and 80s whose data created the charts I quoted. But you will never see them use it to give their own findings a sense of perspective. That's my point.

Just wondering what more informed minds than mine think about this theory that humans aren't changing the planet. Thanks!