An interesting film clip about the balmy Medieval period, an illustration about how material emanating from science becomes misrepresented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

No one has ever explained why the rising temperature in the geological
past has PRECEDED increasing CO2 !

Anyway I will chide you all again for wasting your time on this red herring.
It does not MATTER a damn whether global warming is real or not.
It is a minor problem compared to the problem we have on energy.
We will reduce our use of oil and coal faster than a million Paris conferences.

Coal has already peaked or havn't you heard ?
Crude oil peaked in 2006 and all the price volatility, low growth,
declining demand, low growth in all countries, negative interest rates,
Central Banks losing control, nothing they do does what the money
used to do, interest down inflation supposed to go up, instead the
currency goes up !

What the hell do you think is going on ?

And what are you worrying about ?
A couple of bloody degrees !

mhaze, I saw this film clip a few years ago. The conclusions that can be drawn in relation to what deniers suggest, when using graphs, is that they are highly creative, do not know the parameters used in the graph, or consciously misrepresent an authors work.

A film clip in relation to the Medieval period which provides the basis for such suggestions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s

A master of misrepresentation is the President of Clexit, Monckton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xx5h1KNMAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

"No one has ever explained why the rising temperature in the geological
past has PRECEDED increasing CO2 !"

You must not have read any climate science, because they're all over this! Milankovitch cycles unlock ice-sheets which release CO2, raising temps. Milankovitch cycles are the forcing, worth about 60%, but CO2 accounts for about 40% of the temperature difference in ice ages!
(See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf

It's about climate change, not peak oil. I used to be one of Sydney's leading peak oil activists, marching in to brief the NSW Cross-Benchers back in 2005 on the day oil hit the record price of $60 a barrel. We predicted it would be around $150 to $200 today, maybe even *rationed*! But the oil men predicted fracking. Doomers said no way, EROEI and all that. But look at the fracking, and look at the oil price today! Who was right Bazz? You see $150 a barrel anywhere?
Peak oil doomers have been hanging around http://dieoff.com/ too long.

In an oil crisis we'll adopt rationing, paint extra bicycle lanes, download Uber-like car-sharing apps that load passengers on the way to work, build out electric trolley-buses quick smart (with a line from Ryde to Sydney's CBD estimated to take far less than a year by Roy Leembruggen, inventor of the double-decker train), etc. Tesla motors will have 1.5 million EV's coming off the line annually in the early 2020's.

Smart charging overnight will allow about 45% of our cars to charge, and just under 90% of (American) driving could be charged on today's grid! That means no new power plants are required for 90% of our fleet! Page 10 here https://goo.gl/aixcfT

Peak oil is NOTHING! Climate is EVERYTHING! I *hope* peak oil is as soon as some say, because it will finally force us to do what we need to do to get off the stuff, and take bikes, trains, trams, and EV's a lot more seriously. Imagine a world where Chevron didn't rule so much energy policy, or fund so much climate denial? Awesome.

Max, the IPCC's model assumes that oil & coal will continue to burn
until it does affect the temperature.

The catch 22 is we cannot afford to burn it all as we just cannot afford it.
Absorb that and it changes everything.

Max, had to go, the fracking has made a big difference but its cost
has meant that together with the short life means a break even cost
above what the economy can afford, so that as the mix changes the
final pump price needs to rise.
However demand reduction set in and caused the fall in price.
This volatility in price is exactly what Campbell, Laherre and Defreyes predicted.
We have had two big peaks, perhaps we will get a third.

Even at $60 it is three times the earlier $20 (in 2010 $) and it is
that, that is the root cause of the economic problem.

The reduction by oil companies in search & development, because the
return is just not there, means they & we cannot afford it.
The oil rigs in use in the US fell from 1600 in 2014 to to about 400.
What does that tell you ?
The rise in oil co bankruptcies tells the other side of the story.
Perhaps you stopped watching closely after fracking started.