/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8246778
Oh look, it's this crappy graph again.

>>8246808
>Can't provide a falsifiability criterion can you?
Do you even have the slightest idea about the subject you're trying to discredit?

Any of the parts that go into our understanding of global warming are open to falsification. For instance, if we found that atmospheric CO2 isotope balance hadn't changed since the start of the industrial revolution, that would imply that human CO2 emissions weren't a significant cause. Or if we found that average temperatures hadn't chanced significantly over multi-decade timescales, that would work too.