>>11227533It describes a function but you won't explain which function you're talking about.
For example, you could be talking about a function between amount of CO2 and warming, in which case a 1 to 1 relationship would mean that each unique amount of CO2 corresponds to a unique amount of warming. This bears no relationship to actual models, which are based on a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming, meaning that the same amount of CO2 produces different amounts of warming. That's not a 1 to 1 relationship.
Or you could be talking about a function between multiple variables and climate, in which case a 1 to 1 relationship would mean that CO2 is the only variable affecting the climate, which again bears no resemblance to models, which take into account many variables like solar irradiance, aerosols, albedo, etc.
And you yet again fail to name a single model, further indicating you have no idea what you're talking about. And you yet again have no response to the paper I posted showing actual models are accurate.
So basically you're a liar and a pathetic clown. Thank you, it really makes it easy to argue against deniers and embarrass them publicly when they are this stupid.
Obviously you won't explain it because you have no clue what you're talking about and have been lying this entire thread.
