Quote:
Originally Posted by Bern80  What is so convincing aboout the man made theory? Surely you don't mean to suggest that two things happening at the same time is a scientifically convincing argument.
If that were the case then the fact that solar activity was also high during the same period should be equally convincing.
Co2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it makes up .03% of the atmosphere so even if we have increased by third or half, that's less than a thousandth increase to the total atmosphere. And you are convinced to be the main drive in the temp increase, (which btw hasn;t increased in the last 7-10 years, I'd love to see the model that predicted that.) |
Yeah, it really is overly simplified. It's analogous to saying that drinking milk helps humans grow taller, therefore a tall person who drinks milk can attribute their height entirely to their milk consumption. But things like genetics, sleep patterns, other diet and lifestyle choices all influence height. To conclude that milk consumption is the cause simply because they move the same direction is extremely poor science, but that's as far as the AGW hypothesis goes.
Further compounding the problem is the fact that global temperatures are a function of THOUSANDS of variables, many of which are unknown or difficult to measure. Human height is a much more bounded problem (after all, no amount of milk-drinking will make you 10 feet tall), but we still can't predict with any accuracy how tall someone will be as a function of their milk consumption. That's the real fallacy in logic, IMHO.