>>16725820
A small increase in temperature correlated with a small increase in atmospheric CO2 in the tiny timeframe we have good data for, you mean. I have yet to see anything be it the IPCC reports or papers actually address why this correlation is taken directly as causation. Put in how you assume the climate works to a climate model, tell it to apply your assumptions about CO2 as "forcing" and act like you've predicted something when your climate model tells you what you told it to say. I want to see more research into what is actually causing temperature rise as I've not seen any irrefutable proof CO2, human produced or otherwise, is the primary cause. And no, what climate models that use incomplete understanding of global climate as their basis say is not evidence.
There is evidence from ice cores that temperature has been much higher than now but CO2 concentration wasn't high enough to explain the temperature trends, and the temp changes seem to show no correlation with CO2. That this didn't spur more reasearch into why temperatures are increasing (or if this is a microscopic blip in the temperature record that we are freaking out about for no reason and thinking we can change) concerns me.