@MethDozer LOL...so says the climatards who draw anthropogenic global warming conclusions by cherry picking a statistically insignificant amount of data. Do you really think 30, 50, 100, 150 years of climate data tells the climate story for a planet 4.6 billion years old. It's not even close.
@MethDozer Ohhh...like the Vostok ice cores. So at least that's 400+K years of data, and not some 15-30 year hockey stick trend. But it only shows a correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 - not cause. And sadly for climatards, it's not a positive correlation for the global warming narrative. There have been 4 glacial cycles during that 400K year span. And they've found that the changes in CO2 almost always [b][i]lags[/i][/b] the change in temperature. That is, as the temps warm, the increase in CO2 follows. And as the temps cool, the decrease in CO2 follows. This is devastating news for the climatard community as it proves CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
The more practical theory points toward the oceans as the world's primary source of CO2. As sea water warms it releases CO2. As sea water cools, it absorbs CO2.
@BizSuitStacy Why don't you have a job in atmospheric science and data collection if only you can get it right despite the entire respected scientific community disagreeing? Funny how the only "scientists" and "experts" who agree with your horseshit work for or are funded by the coal and oil industries.
Let's recap. You started by saying no cherry picking, but then you cherry pick (drastic changes in your lifetime). Then it was discredit the source, i.e. a petroleum industry study. I don't know if it is or not, but the suggestion that the study is compromised because the oil industry isn't objective is incredibly ironic given the gov't behind the green agenda funding the research to prove global warming isn't objective either. Ever wonder why there are no climate debates? Because king Obama 👑 said the science was settled. And isn't that what you are pushing? Science through consensus?
Then, the classic move...discredit the OP. Slick, right? [quote]Why don't you have a job in atmospheric science and data collection...[/quote] I guess I could ask why you don't bother reading more.
But your biggest problem still remains. Hard data that demonstrates changes in CO2 output [i][b]follows[/b][/i] changes in temperature. Any actual evidence to refute it? Or are you going to fall back on parroting the narrative?
@BizSuitStacy No, my bubble is still intact. There's no point being threatened by someone who doesn't even know that cherry picking actually means.
I'm fsirly sure I have read more over all and haven't just gravitated towards whatever supports my "little bubble". Confirmation bias is your friend, not mine.
