"we KNOW that the recent upswing in temperature is roughly what you would expect from this increase in CO2, "
This statement could well be reporting a fact, but the discussions I've read in recent years indicate that CO2 and temperature behavior in recent decades can only by correlated by adding a series of 'fudge factors' based on guesses of cloud cover, volcanic events, solar activity, etc. I am not convinced that models have been validated, especially as in modeling past events, you can so easily (and often) cheat.
As to asserting something is credible because you KNOW it (all-caps), that is an indication I've found useful in the past to identify non-rational beliefs that are promoted based on the sincerity of their adherents as the prime factor. Again, not an indication the beliefs themselves are ture or false -- but an indicator that the BELIEVERS are not thinking rationally.
Or perhaps, just not WORDING rationally.
Space/Science » in reply to You know, if you were to take an hour to educate yourself...
re: You know, if you were to take an hour to educate yourself...
The whole thread (36 posts)
- Yeah, global warming is 'natural'
- 27% percent higher than last year?
- global warming is 'natural' on Mars?
- R.L., do you have any idea why the last ice age ended?
- re: Yeah, global warming is 'natural'
- I'd like to see the graphs
- Global cooling is too
- Ya but you have to look at the big picture.
