In order to show an association between two variables is causitive you would document the close association between the two, remove one of the variables and show a fall in the second one and finally reintroduce the second variable and show a rise in the second one.
Now clearly that level of proof is not possible in the co2 /Global warming debate. So the question remains. What level of proof would satisfy your (rightly held) skeptism?
I know this question was directed at someone else, but I watched both this program on C4 and Al Gore's documentary and one thing stood out for me.
The program discussed the point Al Gore's documentary makes about
the link between CO2 levels and earth temperate measurements going
back thousands of years. Al Gore states that the temperate increases were caused by rising CO2 levels. He showed charts one under the other of both CO2 levels and temperature levels, both charts were in synch more or less. It was compelling evidence.
The scientists who refuted this on the C4 program showed the same historic temperature charts but with a difference. Instead of showing both charts seperately one on the top of the screen, the other on the bottom, they overlayed the charts and clearly showed CO2 levels rising consistently 800 years after the rise in temperature levels demonstrating that it is rising temperature that is causing CO2 levels to rise and not the other way around.
Now, it can't be both ways. One group is lying.
Either the evidence supports Al Gore's version or it supports the opposite view or it is inconclusive.
I would be extremely interested in seeing someone from the Al Gore camp explaining their use of the charts in a debate with one of the refuters.
For me this is the core of the whole debate. Those charts are the nub of the evidence.
I dont know who is right or who is wrong but I wish someone with access to the real data would jump on this and get to the bottom of it.
