Most of the other results are based upon the same data sets and methods used by the liar scumbags pretending to be scientists.
Actually, you misunderstood my point. I meant that, as per the scientific process, if enough scientists produce corroborating evidence of a hypothesis, it then would be accepted as a proven hypothesis, or theory.
Theories
can be disproved.
Theories are used as a basis for further hypotheses.
In this case, the hypothesis that:
“Human industrialization causes increased levels of CO2 emission”.
Used in conjunction with the hypothesis that:
“An increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes warmer global temperatures”.
When taken together, these two hypotheses led to the hypothesis that:
“Human industrialization/CO2 emissions causes warmer global temperatures”.
If, as some believe, the second hypothesis is correct, then the
degree to which CO2 causes warmer temperatures becomes an issue.
If a small degree, perhaps no issue exists.
If a large degree, a pressing issue may exist.
If, as some believe, the second hypothesis is incorrect, then no issue exists.
Note no one is arguing that CO2 levels are decreasing.
The problem with this theory, in my mind, is that far too many variables are unexplored.
For example, if I were to present the hypotheses that, firstly:
“increased CO2 emissions cause improved conditions for plant life”.
Secondly, that:
“Improved conditions for plant life cause increases in the number of plants”.
Thirdly, that:
“An increase in the number of plants causes, as a result, an increase in the number of dead and decomposing plants”.
Fourthly, that:
“Decomposing plants give off heat”.
Then, lastly, that:
“Increased CO2 emissions cause increased plant growth, which leads to dead plants decomposing, which action emits heat, which causes a rise in global temperature.”
This COULD be true...But it also might not be. Still, :mrgreen:
