XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/13/2026 2:45 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:   
   > Le 13/02/2026 à 15:24, Vincent Maycock a écrit :   
   >> Here's the consensus:   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change   
   >>   
   >> "There is scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently   
   >> warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of   
   >> recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this   
   >> warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon   
   >> dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities."   
   >   
   > Here are observations (data) :   
   >   
   > Let's examine the correlation between annual anthropic CO2 emissions and   
   > annual temperature increments.   
   > Each dot is a year.   
   > X axis : annual temperature increment (°C) ;   
   > Y axis : proportional to CO2 emissions (model with ECS=3°C for each   
   > concentration doubling) ;   
   >   
   > https://i.postimg.cc/sf438KGS/HADCRUT3-vs-ECS3C-derivee.png   
   >   
   > Correlation coefficient 0.002, R²=0.006. If there is a correlation, it   
   > is too weak to be detectable.   
   >   
   > Without a correlation there can be no causal relation.   
      
   Nope.  You need to plot deviations from a long-term mean, and not   
   increments (which is just, more or less, plotting derivatives again.)  I   
   have already told you how to do this.  Look here:   
      
   https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt   
      
   And, here:   
      
   https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt   
      
   Do a scatter plot on annual CO2 versus annual temperature anomalies and   
   then do a regression with temps as the response and CO2 as the   
   predictor; get back to us.   
      
   Once again, what's your null hypothesis??  Your correlational analysis   
   is with respect to INCREMENTS, and that is just absurd!  It makes   
   absolutely no sense whatsoever to plot incremental temperatures with   
   respect to incremental increases in CO2 concentrations.  That's like   
   plotting incremental increases in the weight of human beings with their   
   incremental increase in caloric intake and concluding that "eating more"   
   will not increase one's weight!  (Don't I wish, though!!)   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)