To Max.

Once more for the dummies.

The Earth undergoes regular, repeating warming and cooling periods roughly every 1,000 years, within a 10,000 year cycle of mini ice ages. And that is not my theory, it was repeatedly mentioned in many of the "dumbass denier" youtube video's who's logic impressed me far more than the alarmist sites that I also viewed. So, I decided to check myself, because one side or the other is telling outright lies.

I simply googled "images, CO2 and global temperatures" and was confronted by a wealth of graphs, some with timescales going back 600 million years all the way down to 1,000 years. There were lots of graphs displaying CO2 against GLOBAL temperatures for 570 million years which were very similar. These particular graphs indicated that CO2 has little or no apparent causal link to global temperatures at all.

Refining my search down to 10,000 year cycles and many graphs displaying the repeating pattern of 1000 year warming and cooling emerges with each warming period actually named. And the warming peaks of the last 9 cycles are warmer than today.

These graphs are not from "dumbass denier" sites, they are from google graphs. I will once again give you the link so that you can see for yourself what you fear to see.

Images. CO2 levels versus GLOBAL temperatures 570 million years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQxBCvhe7bfZFmjpAvNThqxuuV8rg:1580410621884&q=images+co2+and+global+temperatures+570+million+years.&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCxt2tgKznAhVC73MBHel4D4gQ7Al6BAgJEBk&biw=2021&bih=1085

Images. GLOBAL temperatures 10,000 years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQSa_63j1SzKUn7EFNE2necFCDnDg:1580410732382&q=images+global+temperatures+10000+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip5rXigKznAhXkheYKHeQ6CYoQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085

If you still want to avert your eyes from the truth then our readers are not. And if you keep refusing to comment upon the obvious conclusions that these graphs self evidently display, then you are hardly going to convince anybody that your side is right.

I looked at the wiki site on the Little Ice Age and see that they have produced a graph which is attempting to mimic Manne's infamous "hockey stick" by having so many coloured lines running everywhere it is almost meaningless. That should give you pause to consider what they are trying to hide.

One side of this scientific debate is telling the truth and one side is not.

LEGO,

You just said: "One side of this scientific debate is telling the truth and one side is not."

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but there is no scientific debate. Apart from a handful of scientists who have a theoretical axe to grind, just about every scientist in the world is saying that the current climate change phenomena are being driven by anthropogenic global warming. I've been conducting research into what scientists and scholars having been saying on the environment over the past several years and this is what my findings are showing.

There is a debate on the subject between the scientific community and crackpots like Hasbeen, mhaze, Shadow Minister, individual, Loudmouth, and the usual suspects if that is the debate you are referring to.

Max wrote:

"but it's [oil] slowly becoming more expensive because we've used up the "low hanging fruit."

Well that's just patent rubbish. I'm surprised that someone who has written articles and advised governments on oil would make such a rookie mistake.

Max, who knows all about peak oil might enjoy this article about it...
http://reason.com/2017/07/27/peak-oil-what-hubberts-peak/

Some interesting quotes from the we're-all-gunna-die crowd...

Petroleum geologist Colin Campbell warned in 2002 that dwindling oil supplies would soon lead to "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens."

David Goodstein asserted not just that peak production was imminent but that "we can, all too easily, envision a dying civilization, the landscape littered with the rusting hulks of SUVs."

German Energy Watch Group declared that the world had reached peak oil, and that this could soon trigger the "meltdown of society."

But I'm sure Max knew all that as does all the Geology 101 students Max knows so well.

I wonder how they, and Max, reconcile all that with reality...or has Max given up on reality?

LEGO,

I have no problem with this graph of the last 10,000 years.

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D

I agree with your Eisenhower and Churchill quotes, it’s just that these fears belong to the OIL Military Industrial Complex. They’re in the ears of our governments, lobbying HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS IN KICKBACKS every year.

George Monbiot says: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”
http://tinyurl.com/93nm9sn

The health costs nearly double the cost of coal! You pay once in your electricity bill, and again in your public health bill.
http://tinyurl.com/6m2o7c5

Dr James Hansen has calculated that by displacing coal, nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives.
http://tinyurl.com/ydx6mxrb



Finally, there’s just no way I’m bothering to discuss the Hockey Stick with you. You’re rotating again! You haven’t explained why that pissant Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) tried to present American wildfire data prior to the 1980’s as somehow dishonest when the independent fire agency responsible for the data says:-

" As a result the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data."
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

> If the US Fire Service today is now refuting it's own data from before 1983, that would not surprise me at all.

Trying to spread your conspiracy? (winks)

What UTTER crap! I showed you that the scientific requirements of fire studies include specially fitted satellites that we JUST DIDN’T HAVE TILL THE MID 80’s.

It’s like every outraged Denier myth – a storm in a teacup. Misrepresent, cherry-pick, exaggerate, Red Herring, and then SCREAM YOUR RAGE AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY MACHINE INTO YOUR FAVOURITE ECHO CHAMBER!

That’s what’s going on here. You’re all in Denial. For some it might be a bit of fun in the evening or on the weekend or (sadly) a way to spend your retirement. But anyone that actually BELIEVES there’s a REAL worldwide conspiracy to corrupt every physics lab and National Academy of Science on the planet actually needs psychiatric help.

Hi Mhaze,
I enjoyed your peakoil article and think it makes some good points against peak oil doomerism, which I have fought online for about 16 years now.

I truly HATE peak oil doomerism, and have seen it destroy lives!

I’m talking about the inevitable scientific geology of individual oil field resources. You’ve applied aclimate Denier logical fallacy of “poisoning the well” by attacking doomers within the peaknik movement rather than understanding I’m talking about the actual engineering realities which lead to a Hubbert's peak in output.

Hubbert ACCURATELY predicted the peak of CONVENTIONAL oil production in 1956 by counting the CONVENTIONAL OIL RESERVES declining discoveries trends while looking into the increasing consumption trends.

Conventional light sweet oil is a specific category, and it peaked in 2006. Other categories are making GLOBAL peak oil larger and longer, like dumping sand on Mt Kosciusko until it’s bigger and longer. But that doesn’t change the fact that older field geology still applies to peak oil 101.

As the IEA says:

“The discussion about investment in oil projects typically focuses on the outlook for demand. But this is only a small part of the story – the main reason why new investment isrequired, in all our scenarios, is because supply at existing fields isconstantly declining.”
http://www.iea.org/commentaries/crunching-the-numbers-are-we-heading-for-an-oil-supply-shock

You’ll note that your article says unconventional oil will probably increase production for at least another generation?
http://reason.com/2017/07/27/peak-oil-what-hubberts-peak/

Exactly as I said afew posts back, if you bothered to read it.

“and now we are staring down the barrel of a peak in non-conventional oils sometime in the next 20 or so years.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364888

The bottom line? There is a vast amount of oil left - too much from a climate point of view - but we had better start making plans wean off oil before it starts to wean off us so we DON'T bankrupt the modern world!

Of course you don't want to discuss Manne's fraudulent graph because you have probably figured out you are on a loser. I won't discuss your links because you are still refusing to discuss mine.

According to Emeritus Professor of geology Ian Plimer, the first IPCC report included a graph which displayed the previous warming periods as warmer than today. The 2001 IPCC report was the first time Manne's graph was used and it caused a sensation for two reasons. Firstly, it was compelling "proof" that anthropogenic CO2 was indeed warming the planet, and the IPCC used it as their poster graph. The second was, that it created a storm of scientific opposition because it was contrary to literally thousands of historical records and accounts. Two Canadian scientists demanded that Manne supply his data and methodology to them for scientific verification. This Manne strenuously refused to do. Since he had done his research of government money, he was forced to hand the data over, which he did in dribs and drabs, keeping some data back, especially the algorithm he used to plot his data on the graph.

It was found that Manne had used tree ring data from a tree notorious for fast growing when exposed to high levels of CO2. Manne claimed he was unaware of this fact, which was hard to believe, since it was actually the title of the research paper he had got his figures from. He mixed these results with temperatures which were from urban areas, not from where the trees actually grew, which was available. As the scandal grew, the US government insisted that the NAS investigate.

The NAS refused to investigate the Canadians claim that Manne was withholding data which would allow them to verify his facts and methodology. But the NAS reported negatively on Manne's "research", only stopping short of using words like "fraud" and "bias". Manne sheepishly admitted that "mistakes had been made."

After 2006, the IPCC stopped using Manne's infamous graph in any of it's reports. But I can see that it has taken on a life of it's own.