They don't match the observations.
Therefore the Hypothesis is wrong.
And I'm still obliged to support the billions we are 'investing' in renewables ?
Am I?
Really.
Now it's quite clear I'm in a minority of one (or close to it) on here.
That doesn't release me from my own reasoning.
If I see that observations don't match the predictions then the hypothesis is wrong.
My own analysis that CO2 IS a green house and gives rise to a temp. rise of ~ 1 oC per doubling is supported by the data I have downloaded and analysed.
Show us your own data and analysis that refutes it.
Please. I would be interested.
Even if global warming were proven to be utterly false, investment in renewables is still utterly correct.
It's still the only right course of action.
Carboniferous energy sources are finite. They are more sources being found, but they are expensive to source, dangerous to extra and in increasingly environmentally sensitive areas.
Most of all, they are our most important chemical feedstock. We cannot going pissing them into the atmosphere just because we can't be arsed to develop renewables.
In addition, the planets population is ever expanding, and is ever more advanced. Extreme poverty has fallen considerably and education standards are consistently higher. This demand for energy as a resource for communication (at the very least), is growing.....
And this is assuming global warming is a con...
There is no cogent argument for not developing renewables. None
( oh, and from a chemist, please CO
2)