This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Their whole argument would seem to really just be a restatement of the original hypothesis. And to get to their conclusion, people who are not averse to applying the principles of science to the domain of climate will have to put some effort into ignoring the fact that correlation does not imply causation.

So are you saying you find their findings conclusive?

Article: " Carbon dioxide, called carbon dioxide, ..."
Err, not exactly informative.

Article: "While carbon dioxide isn't the only factor affecting Earth's climate or global mean temperature, it is widely considered by scientists among the most significant."

Their whole argument would seem to really just be a restatement of the original hypothesis.

clearly they have more than mere "argument" because they have new EVIDENCE.

And to get to their conclusion, people who are not averse to applying the principles of science to the domain of climate will have to put some effort into ignoring the fact that correlation does not imply causation.

have you got any evidence that they are ignoring that correlation doesn't imply causation in this particular case?

It would have been "a real study" if he would have dated his samples.

Read the paper. What we have is randomized "something".

The new analyses confirm research about modern climate—that global temperatures rise and fall with increases and decreases in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere

I can see confirmation "that global temperatures rise and fall."

I can see confirmation that there are "increases and decreases in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere."

I do not see confirmation that they are in lockstep.

This is actually pretty important since it establishes a clear link in past climates between temperature and atmospheric CO₂ (also known as carbon dioxide) concentration.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@DaSchnieb, each of these researchers go into these papers knowing the conclusions that they want to present. This is not real science.

then it should be easily refuted by your presentations of evidence, right?

i mean: you're making a statement
that is all... just a statement

you don't know what the evidence they have says or even what it is
you don't know what correlations were presented, nor how it ties to anything
you have absolutely no scientific papers, publications nor do you have any experience using the scientific method

yet you make a definitive statement claiming it's "not real science"

perhaps the problem isn't the science you see, but rather how you see it?

because it's a threat to your beliefs, you reject it without even understanding it

that is religion, plain and simple

otherwise you would be presenting refuting studies that show the above to be wrong (which is how science works)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

when some use stomata data they r applauded when othesr use stomata data they r derided

https://wattsupwi...stomata/

@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult moron chris/hannes

Nonsense

1- your argument isn't relevant as it's only tangentially related

2- the keywords in your first paragraph

... variations in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide affect carbon fixation in leaves...

3- arguing that "variations in atmospheric CO₂ don't affect carbon fixation in leaves" because "growth is dictated by the scarcest resource" is idiotic because you're ignoring the fact that carbon fixation is well known in plants

how do i know that?

4- read up on 14C

captain obvious says: idiot troll is an idiot

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult moron chris/hannes

That's nonsense

sigh:
1- measurement

Recent variations in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide ([CO2]atm) have been shown to affect carbon fixation during photosynthesis and are correlated with anatomical and physiological changes observed in leaves of woody dicots. These include changes in stomatal frequency and size and in δ13C values.

please note the specifics before you regurgitate any further idiocy

2- tests

This study tests the link

3- link

...show a statistically significant...

4- cause

[CO2]atm rise from ∼390 ppm in the late Oligocene to ∼870 ppm in the early Miocene

5- conclusion

These values demonstrate a positive correlation between [CO2]atm and global average temperature, contrary to some previous studies for this time interval.

what do you present?

your "interpretation" of a wiki article based upon faulty knowledge

i repeat: idiot troll is an idiot

@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult moron chris/hannes cont'd

What is being alleged is that co2 is the only or dominant factor that contributes to frequency and size of stomata

no
and again, because you missed it and don't understand what it means - i will eliminate all the hard stuff and boil it down to something more manageable for your monosyllabic vocabulary:

Recent variations ... have been shown...and are correlated with anatomical and physiological changes observed

this aint about guessing at this point
more:

These attributes can be measured

big important point there: measurement... not guessing based upon personal interpretation of wiki, but measurement... ok so far?
to continue

This study tests...The results of this study show... These values demonstrate ...

i concentrate on these for a purpose

if you can debunk the study based upon your argument i suggest publishing today

that is how science works

get it yet?