Quote Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!
I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?
Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.
I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.