The KKK are Christian. They aren't exactly representative of modern Christianity (or of Christianity back when the KKK was more substantial), although there was a big subset of the South who were sympathetic to them. The comparison is actually very apt. IS or Daesh or whatever you want to call them (I'd prefer Daesh as it is what the locals call them when they aren't pointing guns at them), is Islamic. It isn't representative of modern Islam, or even of Islam in the region. Thier theology is also a pretty piss poor interpretation of the source text of Islam, an argument you would be right to make, just like the KKK bastardised the Bible (note, I don't like the Quran and think it has some horrid ideas but it is pretty fucking clear that many of Daesh actions are reprehensible). But you cant ignore the fact that they appear to be sincere a fair chunk of the time when they say part of their motivation is religious.

Still not doing the analysis I asked for.

Still not playing your game. Do the analysis I asked for.

Still don't see the analysis I asked for.

This is not a discussion or debate. We aren't doing things on your terms because you refused to adhere to the usual norms of decorum. Do the analysis I asked for.

Your asking me to do a statistically invalid analysis, no dice. Do the one I asked for. Also you clearly don't know what a gish gallop is. I've consistently asked for the same analysis for a load of posts now, you have refused to acknowledge any refutation of your position changing the topic when you are shown to be wrong. You are now gish galloping by accusing me of gish galloping. Do the analysis I asked for.

I'm not following your gish gallop. Do the analysis I asked for.

I don't see the analysis I asked for. I've already refuted your point. Now do the analysis I asked for.

You are having a hard time with the concept of 'do the analysis I asked for' aren't you. You just keep repeating the misinformed jibberish I've already addressed.

No it isn't, you don't understand non-linear systems. I've explained this to you, c.f. the pendulum example I gave you previously.

"Will you at least admit that through the signals analysis of the work week and GDP we should be able to constrain the responsibility humans can take for ultimate global CO2 levels?"

Not the way you are doing it. But I told you the analysis you need to do. Show me a multi-decadal analysis with apropriate statistics and I might be convinced, but not that tripe you have been posting here with significance incorrectly calculated. Do the SMP analysis I asked for and you might convince me. You do know how to do it right?

I've refuted your point (you don't understand non-linear systems and I've pointed out how), and you wont acknowledge it. You have failed to refute mine, and wont even entertain the possibility. I feel fine thanks.

So you cant do the analysis then.

I'm sorry I didn't see the analysis I asked for in there. Are you not able to do it, is that the problem?

You haven't done the analysis I asked for, do the analysis I asked for.

No, no I haven't. Your deficient understanding of non-linear systems has lead you to an erronous conclusion (or rather since you know and I suspect you don't believe your position you are presenting a misunderstanding you know will play well because it is a subtle misunderstanding). Your position is the same as saying you cant displace a pendulum by displacing the attachment point with a DC signal because it only wobbles a little bit when you hook it up to a cam on high frequency AC motor.

Open a cannister of CO2 at the North Pole, how long will it take to diffuse to the South? How long before the planet responds to that dispersal by releasing more CO2 from the oceans? Those aren't rhetorical questions, we have answers to those calculations. If the time scale is more than a week, and it is, then the earth will act as a low pass filter and you wont see a delta function like spike, but a smoothed peak.

Now don't gish gallop with a new point. Do the analysis I asked for.

No, I'm not entertaining another point from you until you do the analysis I ask for. I've addressed your points and now you gish gallop. Do the analysis I suggested.

You didn't do the analysis I asked for, go do it.

"Okay, so then why don't the buffers you speak of erase *all* anthropogenic impact?"

Seriously, you need to get an understanding of how a non-linear system propogates oscillatory signals. Go grab yourself a pendulum and swing the top back and forth really fast and watch the pendulum not move much. Now drag it from one side of the room to the other and watch as it follows, wobbles a little bit then settles in a completely new location. The low frequency terms propagate differently than the high frequency trems.

We are perfectly capable of seeing human CO2 emissions, just long term (are you seriously trying to claim chemistry doesn't work now and that CO2 changes into something else magically in the atmosphere?).