"Listen", he told me, "I am not a climatologist but I have approched this from a different angle"
Facinated I reached for my scotch.
"I am an engineer. Tennis rackets are my trade. I design, test and certify tennis rackets"
Finishing off my glass I gestured that he may continue.
"I might know nothing about climate but I can analyze data and come to conclusions about climate anyway. I am an expert at how people miss-use graphs. Let me show you."
He reached for his IPhone before continuing. "The following is not a 'climatologists' study; more from the view of a tennis racket engineer who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation"
Here is the graph he showed me:
Image 1a, The graph I was shown in the bar which compares Hydrocarbon use, solar activity and temperature compared. "Hydrocarbon Use" being a technical term for prosperity.
Notice how temperature moves up and then down and up again while solar activity goes up and then down and up again. Ie the same thing. In engineering this is called correlation (pronounced cor-rel-ation). Technically speaking the above graph proves global warming is caused by the sun and NOT by co2.
I inquired where he had located such a powerful graph.
"Found it on the internet", he replied.
Well what this demonstrates is that you don't need to be a climatologist or know anything about climate to be an expert on climate. Why is it that so many engineers are skeptical of global warming? Well take tennis racket engineering, if you were to engineer a tennis racket incorrectly someone might recieve a bad wrist strain. On the otherhand if you peddle together a climate model incorrectly there are no bad side effects, but you will have dozens of grants falling through your letter box. Therefore obviously manmade global warming must be a myth.
Update: I received a snarky comment (deleted), probably from a warmist, complaining that the graph shows arctic and not global temperature. Yes yes I am aware of this. No it wasn't a mistake, notice I never actually said the graph showed "global temperature" so I haven't made a mistake. Remember I have been given peer reviewed status by Prof. Malvolio who is an expert in metaphysics so I am hardly likely to make such mistakes.
As for the claim that if global temperature is graphed instead of arctic temperature it no longer correlates with solar activity, remember the engineer explained it wasn't "a climatologist's study", he doesn't know anything about climate, he doesn't need to. What he did was look at graphs he found on the internet and come to conclusions on climate nontheless. He is an expert at data analysis and how graphs can be miss-used. Learn to read.