rstuart, if you can't explain the arguments of the YouTube video to me, then you shouldn't use it. Either you don't understand it, or you are fobbing me off. Neither helps the discussion.

I watched enough of it to know that the supercilious narrator is no better than Monckton. Imagine suggesting that CO2 is like having a heater in the house. Heaters produce energy, but CO2 doesn't. The analogy reveals that he doesn't understand the issues, so I saw no point in continuing to watch it and trying to summarise it for you.

I did look at Wikipedia on the anoxic episodes and it doesn't agree with your summary. It suggests that global warming, caused by volcanism, stopped the circulation in the oceans and this caused the anoxic episodes. However, it is light on serious references. (I don't count The Discovery Channel as a reliable source). It also brings up the clathrate hypothesis.

But when I do further research I find other competing theories such as the claim that the anoxic event occurred because of the release of sulphur by volcanoes fertilising the oceans. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo743.html. This is nothing to do with CO2.

Hi Graham, I did watch the video all the way through, and thought it was rather good. (I thought the presenter was more sarcastic than supercilious, but then I could be a little biased; some people have actually suggested I can be a little sarcastic at times...)
The analogy of the cabin heater I think was valid, inasmuch as CO2 is responsible for containing re- radiated energy. The Earth's surface becomes the 'heater'. In the case of the Earth's atmosphere, the initial source of energy is of course the sun; in the analogy of the cabin the initial source might be oil or wood.
This article demonstrates that we now have 3 options rather than 2.
We live on a boat, floating on a wide and hostile sea. It's the only boat we have, and there are no lifeboats. About 97% of the people most knowledgeable about how the boat floats believe it might be sinking. In fact they are about 95% certain the boat is sinking, and that our sloppy housekeeping is at least partially to blame. A small minority of experts believe the boat isn't sinking, or that if it is sinking there is nothing we can do about it.
Our options are:
Listen to the majority of experts, and look for ways to stop our boat sinking. starting with simply cleaning up our sloppy habits so as not to exacerbate the situation;
Listen to the minority of experts, and do nothing;
Or, do as Alex Stuart has done: devote our efforts to finding a really good excuse, so that if and when our boat sinks, at least we can say it wasn't our fault.
I'm afraid I'm rather a pessimist. The marketplace isn't teleological, and we'll continue to do little or nothing until it's too late. Right now, I believe the smartest thing OZ (and communities, and individuals) could do is concentrate on achieving the greatest level of self sufficiency possible.
Charity begins at home. If the worst occurs, we'll be ready for it, and if it doesn't, what have we lost?

Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well. It's not a valid analogy. The point he is making has some validity - a hotter sun is going to make the earth hotter - but the analogy is quite wrong.

If someone is that sloppy at that level, then I don't think there is much point persevering. I couldn't see anywhere who the person was. I bet he wasn't a climate scientist, so a lot of your colleagues would say we shouldn't pay any attention to him anyway.

Which leads me to the 95% of experts claim. It's just not true. There is a substantial body of opinion that says other factors are more determinative of temperature than CO2. It's not just a "small minority" it's a substantial minority. And when you look at the evidence you'd have to say that the lower end of IPCC forecasts is more likely to be true rather than the high end, in which case we don't have a life-threatening situation.

Added to that, most economists who have modelled the costs of adapting or abating have determined that adapting is the best course. The only one who hasn't is Stern, and that was only be manipulating the discount rate. Put his discount rate where it should be and he comes to the same conclusion.

Not that Alex's article is about any of this anyway - he is merely pointing out that it is a population issue. If the rest of the world had a population density like Australia there wouldn't be an issue at all. That being the case, Australia ought to get some recognition for that, just like people in other places are.

“Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well.”
Precisely my point Graham. The sun warms Earth from above, then the Earth -the heater- re radiates. No CO2, the warmth radiates away (no heater, snowball Earth). High CO2, the heat can't radiate away (heater, snowball Earth defrosts).
Be fair Graham. You're critiquing a video you admit you haven't bothered to watch.
In the bit you didn't watch, the presenters name is highlighted. Peter Hadfield, a one time writer for “New Scientist”. Some people might suggest a professional science journo probably has as much credibility as a journo for an online opinion site.
http://www.good.is/post/peter-hadfield-has-an-excellent-youtube-channel/
Yeah, OK he is supercilious.
As to the question of 'experts', the stats I have seen (and had quoted to me on this website) is that a majority of scientists buy into AGW, and an overwhelming majority of Climate scientists, but so what? If you consulted a hundred doctors on the health of your child, and only 55% told you your housekeeping was making her sick, would you carry on as usual?
And as far as 'Adapting', well, I've already admitted that is what we will have to do because there's Buckley's of us doing anything else, but as to the costs... Consider that almost a billion people are under nourished now, in the system that we are 'adapted' to.
How do you think they'll go, 'adapting'?

@GrahamY: Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well. It's not a valid analogy.

True, its model is an exact match for our climate, and that oddly was my first thought as I started watching it. But he was using it to illustrate leading and lagging forcings. He did tie it into CO2 levels later, and in the end I thought he did a pretty good job of it - otherwise I would not have posted it.

@GrahamY: I watched enough of it to know that the supercilious narrator is no better than Monckton.

Unfortunately the video is about him demonstrating Monckton is simply wrong, unfortunate because it is a distraction. I didn't choose it for that reason, I choose it because it had the clearest answer to your query on "why there is no correlation between CO2". However now you've brought it up, it also demonstrates why he is better than Monckton. He doesn't invent his facts.

@GrahamY: The analogy reveals that he doesn't understand the issues, so I saw no point in continuing to watch it and trying to summarise it for you.

Probably wise. I think I can understand it without your help. That was the point of posting it really - just about anybody could. It has been explained many times in writing without a 350 word no graphics limit, and yet people persist in saying they aren't correlated.

@GrahamY: It suggests that global warming, caused by volcanism, stopped the circulation in the oceans and this caused the anoxic episodes.

Correct. To put it more precisely the CO2 released by volcanism gradually raised the temperature, and this triggered a few things such as the circulation stopping. They don't mention it in that article, but the usual reason given for circulation stopping is the ice caps melting. Like all Wikipedia articles it is narrowly focused, you have be curious enough to go looking to discover the entire chain of events.

@Grim

<< Consider that almost a billion people are under nourished now, in the system that we are 'adapted' to.
How do you think they'll go, 'adapting'? >>

Well, Grim, a good starting point might be to ensure that that (unadapted) “billion” do not through hyper-fertility rates grow into two billion, as has been the practice in the past, each time trillion$ in aid is provided to alleviate their medical and nutritional shortcomings.

It is no mere coincidence that regions of the world with the most undernourished are also the regions with the fastest population growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate