?

Kano and I were having a sidebar discussion on this. Graphicconception interjected with a remark that leads me to believe that he thinks it was a global event when he said "Being a Global Event is not relevant. What matters is did it reduce the global average temperature.".

I will now demonstrate the fallacy in Graphicconceptions comment by providing this analogy:

When you close off a room of your house and increase the amount of cooler air entering into it (as in you added a window AC unit to the room) you will have effectively reduced the average temperature of the house, but the additional cooling is localized and does not impact the entire house, other than the average temperature of the house.

This fairly well describes what happened during the LIA. Large regions of the planet were impacted by the LIA. Almost all of the cooling occurred in the northern hemisphere and not all of the regions were cooling at the same time. The cooling of these regions could have reduced the average global temperatures, but the cooling was not planet wide. Graphicconception has no conception of averaging. You can raise the temperature of half of the planet by 1C and lower the temperature of the other half of the planet by 1C and still maintain the same average global temperature. There is the fallacy in Graphicconception's logic. A localized cooling can alter the average global temperature without there being a global cooling.

The following links are to major oil and gas companies statements concerning climate change. These statements are on their webpages.

ExxonMobil - http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/cli...

BP - http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainabili...

Chevron - http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

ConocoPhillips - http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainable-developm...

Occidental Petroleum - http://www.oxy.com/SocialResponsibility/Environmen...

Canadian National Resources - http://www.cnrl.com/corporate-responsibility/envir...

Marathon Oil - http://www.marathonoil.com/Social_Responsibility/E...

Shell OIl - http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/en...

Are many of the major oil and gas companies propagating the global warming hoax?

Raisin Cane just asked a question where he showed a graphic used by Steven Goddard. This was graphic depicted the climate temperature trend of the U.S. from 1880 to 2000. Raisin Cane and Steven Goddard both seem to believe that the climate of the U.S. can be used to represent the climate the planet. Raisin Cane awarded "Best Answer" to Jim Z before I could finish my response, so I will post my response to Raisin Cane here.

"Steven Goddard, the unknown climatologist(?), is using temperature data of the U.S. and trying to make a global representation with it. If you truly do have a background in science then you know this is wrong and on so many levels. Ottawa Mike knows this as well and yet he clings to it like it is his newborn baby!

Why not take a look at global temperatures for this same time period?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/gl...

Image source - https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-mu...

This is why you DO NOT use the climate of any one country and try to claim that it represents the climate of the entire planet! You know this!

Raisin Cane, are you truly a scientist? If so, how can you make such an egregious error by using that graphic?"

Now, back to my question, what percentage of Earth's surface area is represented by the CONUS?

... what will happen to Tim Flannery? It appears that the people of Australia have answered this question for you. You may read it here: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/24/267063...

There is no need for you to respond to this. This is just to answer the question Kano asked the other day concerning where will Tim Flannery go now. According to the citizens of Australia, nowhere. How does this change the science, in any way, concerning the AGWT? It doesn't. Just like your pointless questions concerning this matter.