Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.
Lindzen doesn't back up his statement with much either. We're not doing science here, we're doing political argument in sound bites. Lindzen wants you to believe that a massive build-up in CO2 will not have serious environmental consequences despite a very strong, 500,000 year correlation between atmospheric temperature and CO2 levels. I don't buy it. He's got to present much stronger arguments than he does before I'd even seriously consider it.
Face it, pal: You have a religious belief. It's called Global Warming.
You know that's not true from my last post to you on the other thread. In fact, I'm not religious - I don't have that kind of mentality. You do.
Care to comment further on that "correlation"? My observation is that it damn sure isn't a linear one. It isn't even proportional.
From here.