Yes. A non-sequitur.<quoted text>
No non sequitur.
ENSO you idiot. And ENSO was responsible for 'warming up' the air in 1998 (El-Nino), followed by reducing the slope in 2010 and 2012 (La-Nina). The issue is the transfer of heat from the oceans to the air. On AVERAGE it is stable, but ENSO can cause noise in the air temperature. And going from a noise PEAK in 1998 to a noise trough in 2011 is faulty. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...<quoted text>
If la nina is responsible for cooling down the place then el nino was responsible for warming it up.
The cause (wind patterns) that cause the upwelling warm or cold waters are irrelevant. They can, at most, move heat from the oceans to the air or the reverse. AGW is about the total thermal energy increase.<quoted text>
But it's not that simple, just like all climate science it's very complex. What causes the el ninos vs the la ninas is very important and all the ancillary processes as a result of these functions are also important.
True. The thermal differences between regions drives climate. But CO2 is a major driver of AGW which increases and shift those differences so it CHANGES climate. Thus 'climate change'. Got it yet?<quoted text>
CO2 is not driving climate.
The thing to do to improve the economy is to invest heavily in green energy (which creates jobs) and reduce the emphasis and subsidies on fossil fuels (which mostly are money to the ownership of energy reserves).<quoted text>
That's the most important news because that's what the politicos are using to wring more money out of our economies.