>>11121496>This makes no sense. Are you saying man isn't part of nature?
Doesn't matter whether you consider man a part of nature, the fact remains that man is the cause. So how does this not make sense?>Because you claim that temperature hasn't followed CO2 until since we've started putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
No, I said we've never seen CO2 increase before temperature until now, not that it's never happened. Humans have not been around for most of Earth's history. >Because there are a lot more factors that can influence the temperature measurements
What do you mean? An indirect measurement of temperature via satellite has more factors affecting it than a direct measurement via thermometer. And many more assumptions. >Instrumental data simply doesn't have the coverage to be considered an accurate measure of "global temperature"
It does, pic related.>yet the satellite data was "corrected" to closely match it
When was this done? Every correction has been due to a specific mechanism of error discovered. The fact that they keep bringing the data closer to instrumental even by skeptics like Roy Spencer is indicative of the instrumental data's accuracy. You are confusing the effect for the cause.