Climate Policy

[Concillian]

I'm not suggesting or implying anything other than what I said.

So you're sticking with massively improbable coincidence?

Again, it seems remarkable to me that it is linear

Look at the graph again, it's not linear, there is definite curvature since after 1750: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...400kyr.png

The keeling curve is roughly linear, but that's only 50 years. A small portion of an exponential curve looks rougly like a straight line unless near the origin. But still, it could be pretty linear, especially when you look at the next piece of information...

Compare the CO2 curve previously linked to the fossil fuel usage curve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_C...pe_to_Y2004.png

Note that both curves seem to sharply increase around 1950, and from 1950 to the 2000s is a fairly linear increase... of both curves. There appears to be a very strong cause and effect relationship, and that relationship makes perfect scientific sense. Which is why I'm totally baffled as to why anyone would choose the massively improbable coincidence over well founded and understood science that appears to point to a very strong cause and effect relationship.