I've got a better idea than you trying to explain it.
Why don't you point us to a government lab or university report that supports your statements.
What you wrote is unsupported and unsupportable.
Which statements? Be specific rather than referring to the opening line.
Is it my statement that increases in CO2 lag temperature increases historically, by 800 years +-200 y? I've already posted links to 2 studies on this.
Or was it the remaining portion of my post which was in response to an opinion piece (written by somebody tied to the global warming industry), who stated that it doesn't matter if CO2 lagged temperature, because the remainder of the warming "could have" been caused by CO2.
I suppose it could have, the remaining warming
could have been caused by excess warming due to excess animal flatulence as well. Just because something "could have" happened, doesn't mean it did happen.
Something started the warming, the idea that this process abruptly stopped at t=800, and CO2 warming took over for the remaining of the warming smacks of desperation. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't need a "government lab or university report" to tell me an argument contained within an opinion piece is flawed. Logic and critical thought takes care of that.
Morgan - are you still thinking I'm some other poster logging in under different names? I challenge you to back this up, show us all the IP addresses of my supposed "identities", and trace them back to show the relationship. Otherwise, please apologize and retract your allegation. An apology about calling me unintelligent would also be appreciated.
Also, please answer my previously posted question. Can you find a published study that has determined the effectiveness of CO2 at raising global temperatures, without relying on historical conditions? Because, otherwise, what you've written in various posts on this board, is "unsupported and unsupportable".
