The reality is, that all proposed "climate change" models are mathematically suspect and thus there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature.
For instance, sunspot activity or the lack of it, has a far greater correlation to short term warming or cooling.
For longer term warming or cooling, any true scientist should readily admit that the tools currently available have very limited utility, since the mathematical models cannot possibly take into account enough of the real behavior.
For example, the Gulf Stream, which we know has a great deal of influence on East Coast weather, is one of the most studied, yet still is not understood very well; thus no mathematical model of its behavior can be said to be accurate.
CO2stats is more about selling "liberal guilt credits" than anything else.
> there is no actual evidence that reducing CO2 from man-made sources would in fact modify global temperature.
There is no evidence that such a modification in temperature would be a bad thing, either.
Basically, it's just a stack of assumptions. I'm not saying it's necessarily false or anything, but I find it strange to see supposedly intelligent, rational-minded, etc. people (= "hackers") step into this one as easily. Let's question all those assumptions first, would you?
For instance, sunspot activity or the lack of it, has a far greater correlation to short term warming or cooling.
For longer term warming or cooling, any true scientist should readily admit that the tools currently available have very limited utility, since the mathematical models cannot possibly take into account enough of the real behavior.
For example, the Gulf Stream, which we know has a great deal of influence on East Coast weather, is one of the most studied, yet still is not understood very well; thus no mathematical model of its behavior can be said to be accurate.
CO2stats is more about selling "liberal guilt credits" than anything else.