Geomagntic - Climate, page-74

Thanks for your thoughts.
I don't believe this is a a case of "arguing an irrelevant point of nomenclature" as you suggest. Just a consequence of responding to one of jopo's differing versions of his posts, which he's acknowledged was an error on his part. I worked off one of his posts rather than the other, without picking they differed. Why jopo mixed up talking about magnetic declination in some posts and distance between geomagnetic poles varying in others, I don't know.

------

But I cannot see why you claim that cum hoc ergo proctor hoc does not apply. Correlation is not causation.
And even correlation presumes jopo's chart is correct, which I've neither verified nor disputed.

It's an interesting possible correlation, but there is no reason to call it any more than that. Plus, as I said before, it does nothing to refute the greenhouse gas effect and the observations and studies that support the understanding of that mechanism causing the observed current warming.

------

The viewzone article you linked regarding the planet's magnetic field and precipitation in the tropics acknowledged the role of CO2 in climate change. Like that article I don't dispute (and neither does the IPCC dispute) that there are some geomagnetic and cosmic ray effects on weather. But the work does not suggest that either explains global warming.