It's just a chart showing CO2 leading temperatures higher. I don't why you are having a fit
Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
It's just a chart showing CO2 leading temperatures higher. I don't why you are having a fit
But when we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas along with some other information the conclusion is obvious to anyone with more half a brain.
You DO know CO2 is a greenhouse has right. I really don't think you idiots know what that means.
Are you forgetting which argument goes with which opponent now? I've already agreed with you on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. What I don't agree with you on is the "some other information", or your conclusion. Again, there are a whole host of unknowns you cannot explain.
Why were there periods of hotter temperature throughout the world's history? Was the sun hotter then? (to use your comment)
OK< I'll go slowly. There is no other explanation that fits and regardless, increasing CO2 levels increase forcing.
Thanks for slowing down. Let me return the favor with indexing.
1. Since there's still a whole helluva lot we have to learn about the earth, saying "there is no other explanation that fits" isn't conclusive.
2. Increasing the levels of a greenhouse gas should, in theory, have an effect on the temperature. What isn't clear is how much it would take to alter the earth's temperature. So if the avg. temperature of the earth has gone up 2 degrees in the past 30 years (making up numbers here for easy discussion) then I've not seen any data that equates ppm of CO2 increase to a finite temperature adjustment. Just a chart that conveniently shows both going in the same direction. That could be coincidence. CO2 could really be affecting it. Or it could be barely affecting it at all, it's just moving in the same direction.
You're preaching it as fact and it sounds a whole lot like supposition.
Yet another poor comparison. You're getting quite good at them!
There are a limited amount of factors that influence thermodynamics in a contained structure. Can we be absolutely sure of all of them? We can be reasonably sure. The planet, and it's immediate environment in space, are an entirely different matter.
But hey, you can simplify whatever you want to make believe whatever you want.
Continuing a decades-long trend, members of the media placed near the bottom in a poll which asked respondents their opinions of various professions.
In the Gallup survey, television news reporters edged out advertising salespeople, state-level politicians, car salesmen, members of Congress, and lobbyists with just 20 percent of respondents saying they had a favorable opinion. They were tied with lawyers.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2nlhcRmxm
In the Gallup survey, television news reporters edged out advertising salespeople, state-level politicians, car salesmen, members of Congress, and lobbyists with just 20 percent of respondents saying they had a favorable opinion. They were tied with lawyers.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2nlhcRmxm
1. You're assuming scientists are as ignorant as you are. They are not,
2. They know how much a certain level of CO2 forces warming. It's measured by watts per square meter.
It's not just me "preaching it as fact" , it's also every sci org in the world.
And then there is that common sense thing.