The graph of US temperature is a graph of the temperature data before it was altered by NASA climatologist James Hansen. There would appear to be a warming trend across the graph. There is no such warming trend on graphs of rural temperature readings through the 1900's when carbon dioxide was steadily increasing. Rural temperature graphs: www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI The US graph is used instead of a global graph because I have not yet found a graph of global temperature that does not look suspiciously like the altered US graph. The rewriting of the climate history would appear to be a worldwide phenomenon. Altered NASA graph: http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/nasa-and-hansen-doctored-us-temperature-graphs-he-who-controls-the-past-controls-the-future-he-who-controls-the-present-controls-the-past/comment-page-1/#comment-1711
The magnitude 9.3 earthquake near Sumatra on December 26, 2004 released enough heat to melt all of the Arctic sea ice. The connection between earthquakes and climate should have been common knowledge a long time ago. Carbon dioxide has increased substantially since the 1800's but still only makes up about .0385 percent of the atmosphere Carbon dioxide is just a small fraction of all of the greenhouses gasses most of which is water vapor. Although it may be true that carbon dioxide and other green house gases trap some heat, no one seems to know how much. It is argued that all of the long wave infrared radiation that can be trapped by greenhouse gasses was being trapped a long time ago and that additional CO2 makes no difference. If the earthquake correlated warming is subtracted from the temperature graphs how much if any warming is left to blame on increasing carbon dioxide? If the earth is going to run out of fossil fuels in two hundred years then such unobservable warming is not an issue.
It is interesting that a certain documentary came out soon after the 2004 earthquake. ('An Inconvenient Truth' came out in May of 2006 about the time the earth would start seeing the maximum effects of the heat from that earthquake.) I doubt if I am the first one to notice the connection between earthquakes and climate. How useful such information would be to people that make a living investing in commodity futures like heating oil and crop yields. Investors in such commodities spend millions of dollars on meteorologists to help them better invest their money. Is Al Gore just a stooge for the investment bankers from Goldman Sachs running his carbon tax scheme? How likely is is that the bankers at the largest investment bank in the world would be ignorant of such information?
If it is true according to the cooling hypothesis that as the earth cools the plates in the earth's crust are forced together causing earthquakes, then it can be rightly stated that global cooling causes global warming.
There is a strong correlation between sunspot activity and temperature. Why then should there be a correlation between sunspot activity and seismic activity? Sunspots are associated with very large magnetic fields on the sun. The core of the earth is said to be a solid iron nickel magnet floating in the liquid interior. How much of a magnetic field on the sun would it take to twist the core and trigger earthquakes? Studies say there is no connection but studies say that the science is settled on global warming.