/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12735759
>>12736044
(cont)

This entire argument is bizarre because ice cores show temperature and CO2 rising together at the same time with near perfection. Only the downward slope shows the "lag". If I simply edit all the downward slope (picture related) and if we pretend this is the only information we can obtain from the ice cores, is the result still controversial? I don't think so. This confuses me deeply. I'm trying to see reality other people's eyes. Do you trust that this modified graph consisting of upward slopes probably shows the truth, but if we add the downward slope it suddenly shows lies? Only because you really wish the two lines would always match and they don't? Why isn't the graph showing the truth all the way, and thus temperature indeed does fall before CO2? The ice cores can correctly predict many aspects of the cyclical events, this method of data acquisition has proven itself. What about the other methods of data collection? What have microfossils predicted, what has pollen predicted? Why should I discard the ice core data in the favor of these strangers that have not proven themselves, because of one very limited graph of a single slope?