12 Jul 18
Originally posted by @humyLOL!
NO, NONE of us have EVER suggested that the MERE fact our earth is currently warming means people must be the cause. Try huge amount of man made CO2 and what the known basic physics says and what that known basic physics says is that, with all else equal, more CO2 logically SHOULD cause warming.
The observed warming merely confirms what the known basic physic ...[text shortened]... o CO2 must be the cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You are a perpetual LIAR.
Then why are you insisting man is the cause? You say basic physics more CO2 "should" cause warming. Why didn't you say "is" if you are certain? You are clearly not certain and that means you don't have any proof. Besides, you know as well as I do that warming in the atmosphere is very different than warming in a lab. You have no evidence of your claim, just naturally caused warming.
Should? FAIL!
12 Jul 18
7 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat doesn't quite make grammatical sense. Basic physics says more CO2 should cause warming and it does. Which part of "and it does" can't you handle? There is no uncertainty that it does and I never said there was and you know it. You are a perpetual liar.
You say basic physics more CO2 "should" cause warming.
12 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainSee prior posts. It's warming now.
The CO2 level is about the same, yet no where near as warm.
12 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou are not paying enough attention. The earth is in a warming cycle, and that is normal. Scientists are not saying that warming cycles are due to people. They are pointing out stuff that you block from your brain for some reason.
"No one is suggesting that the fact our earth is currently warming means people must be the cause."
That isn't true. Sonhouse, humy, wildgrass, deepthought and many others suggest that. They have failed to prove it, but they suggest it.
You aren't even a side issue. Unless, awfruck, are your running for goverment?
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @humyYou need to prove it is warming more than the natural trend. You have not done that. Furthermore, I have to keep reminding you of that. This is why I say you and others think warming proves AGW when it does not. Why do I have to keep reminding you?
That doesn't quite make grammatical sense. Basic physics says more CO2 should cause warming and it does. Which part of "and it does" can't you handle? There is no uncertainty that it does and I never said there was and you know it. You are a perpetual liar.
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassYou need to prove it is warming more than the natural trend. You have not done that. Furthermore, I have to keep reminding you of that. This is why I say you and others think warming proves AGW when it does not. Why do I have to keep reminding you?
See prior posts. It's warming now.
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @apathist"Scientists are not saying that warming cycles are due to people."
You are not paying enough attention. The earth is in a warming cycle, and that is normal. Scientists are not saying that warming cycles are due to people. They are pointing out stuff that you block from your brain for some reason.
You aren't even a side issue. Unless, awfruck, are your running for goverment?
It depends on the scientist. Perhaps you have confidence that no scientist is that naive, but I do not. Few climate scientists would make that mistake, but you just said scientists, not climate scientists.
Since we both accept that we are in a natural warming cycle you accept that an acceleration of warming must be proven to establish significant AGW (man made global warming), right?
13 Jul 18
4 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainWe have repeatedly shown you the evidence that it is almost mainly if not mainly man made, which you then just ignore.
You need to prove it is warming more than the natural trend.
You need to prove the recent warming cannot be largely man made.
Why is mainly man made significant to you? Suppose it was 49.99% man made instead of 50.01% man made; So it doesn't matter because of that puny 0.02% difference? You make no sense.
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @humyNope. You have not shown any evidence. You have shown estimates that mislead you to believe it was evidence, but no actual evidence.
We have repeatedly shown you the evidence that it is almost mainly if not mainly man made, which you then just ignore.
You need to prove the recent warming cannot be largely man made.
Why is mainly man made significant to you? Suppose it was 49.99% man made instead of 50.01% man made; So it doesn't matter because of that puny 0.02% difference? You make no sense.
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhy do you say lies that convince nobody here?
Nope. You have not shown any evidence. .
13 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat I do is listen to experts. There can be controversy so listen carefully.
You need to prove it is warming more than the natural trend. You have not done that. Furthermore, I have to keep reminding you of that. This is why I say you and others think warming proves AGW when it does not. Why do I have to keep reminding you?
What reason is there to think we are not changing the environment? We obviously are. We should be concerned. We can listen to pundits with no relevant skills, that's clearly true.
14 Jul 18
Originally posted by @humyYou are lying. No evidence.
Why do you say lies that convince nobody here?