Originally Posted by
N2264J
When dealing with systems as huge as the global climate, you're working primarily with probabilities. You can't duplicate this stuff in a wind tunnel.
Look, we've been through all of this before. In the 50s, peer reviewed science started to link cigarette smoking with lung cancer. The tobacco industry hired medical doctors, celebraties and quack scientists to publically characterize those papers and studies as "junk science."
That worked for a while but today you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
We have to get this right because the consequences are global, not just some individual smokers dying of cancer.
I see you can't or won't answer my two simple questions.
You have plucked another red herring out of the can, and I am glad to see it.
What of tobacco? After everyone has seen it to be harmful, governments around the world continue to participate in the manufacture and distribution by making far more in tax revenue than any of the tobacco companies make on the product. The solution for government was to step up their profits rather than eliminate sales.
But, you digress, and knowing that climate is complex look away from complex causes and pin all of your hopes to CO2-ignoring other possible mechanisms for heating or cooling.
So, what is the correct temperature for Earth?