What is Reddit's opinion of A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

104%.

If you'd like a climatologist to explain it to you, maybe check out Katherine Hayhoe's book.

> If you want to compare anthropogenic to natural you need to come up with an assumption about the baseline (natural) trend.

It's not really an assumption. It's based on actual data. And it's right there in the graph.

> in other words what suddenly causes natural temperature to trend down post 1960 when its trajectory was constantly up prior to that point?

Natural fluctuations exist, too. We just happen to be in a period dominated by human influence.

> The correct answer, if you knew what the fuck you were talking about, is that the modelled baseline has been calibrated on many more years data but the information displayed on the chart is limited to the past century.

You know we can measure IR absorption of CO2 and other greenhouses gases in any lab with the right equipment, right?

http://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/in-under-5-minutes-ba.html

> “Why do you say 104%” was not me pointing out that you were wrong, it’s me asking why you have to present the statistic in an alarming manner, like a buzz feed journalist or something. By being such a drama queen the smart people in the room (the people you need to convince)

Maybe you should read this book by climatologist Katherine Hayhoe. She's a very serious scientist, and she also acknowledges the scientific reality that humans are responsible for 104% of modern warming. Why would any serious person deliberately say something wrong?

> I have looked back further and I’m not alarmed in the slightest. You can cherry pick the best starting point for your time axis, go right ahead, but refer to above.

You haven't looked very closely.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

> I’m not saying NASA is wrong. Your chart comes from a blog hosted on a nasa website. Why do you hold a nasa blog in such high regard that their word is gospel and not worthy of scrutiny?

Dude, this stuff has been scrutinized ad nauseum. There are basically no scientists who agree with you.