OK, I get it, pseudo science.
The scientific method starts with a hypothesis “could this be true?”
The final judgment says yes/no. A critical step in proving/disproving the hypothesis is observation. If the evidence that has been observed contradicts the hypothesis, then it cannot be stated as fact. So...
On September 7, 2019 at 20:46, djy said...
The planet is warming, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric CO2 content has increased, ergo CO2 must be the cause. The problem with such a simplistic argument, however, is that it completely ignores historical understanding (global temperatures have been warmer and CO2 levels higher) and natural variability; i.e. with atmospheric CO2 content being too low to have any effect, what caused the early 20th century warming and with it increasing what caused the mid 20th century cooling?
If actual, observed CO2
rising and falling refuses to coincide with actual, observed rising and falling of temperature, wouldn’t you consider that a critical data point in conflict with your belief? Or is your mind made up?
Again, I am not trying to slam you, just trying to address the issue clear and logically.
Last edited by tomciara on September 8, 2019 10:23.