Is This a Verifiable Claim?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Notice how humy tries to mislead people into thinking I expect others to prove a negative. When someone claims global warming is mostly man made and I say prove it, am I asking them to prove a negative?

Yes; You are asking us to prove the 'negative', specifically, that the recent global warming is NOT purely natural.
All 'positives' can be reexpressed as 'negatives' and vice versa thus showing the idiocy of your claim it is unreasonable to prove one but not the other.
( + I have already repeatedly shown you the proof )

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I have also written a lot of peer reviewed literature, but you don't blindly accept everything I say.

Scientific consensus isn't about any single individual, moreover, Singer isn't a climate scientist.

I have never read any peer reviewed literature you wrote. How could I accept what I never read?

"Scientific consensus isn't about any single individual, moreover, Singer isn't a climate scientist."

I never said scientific consensus is about a single individual. You are confused.

Singer is a retired climate scientist. You tried that argument before and gave up. Humy tried to pick up where you left off and claimed only climatologists were climate scientists. He was wrong.

Originally posted by @humy
Yes; You are asking us to prove the 'negative', specifically, that the recent global warming is NOT purely natural.
All 'positives' can be reexpressed as 'negatives' and vice versa thus showing the idiocy of your claim it is unreasonable to prove one but not the other.

You are not not wrong.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You are not not wrong.

No, I am not not right.

To clarify for my peers reading this, I never claimed global warming was "purely" natural.
False statements by humy are commonplace. Be very skeptical of his assertions.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I never claimed global warming was "purely" natural.

So you admit there is man made global warming?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
To clarify for my peers reading this,....

WHAT 'peers'? Don't make us laugh. I am not even sure even I can call some people here my 'peers' (and I certainly wouldn't) and at least I have SOME noteworthy science credentials!
Are you a scientist or expert? What are your science credentials?
Do you REALLY believe anyone here takes your word on science as authoritative!? NOBODY here does.
You clearly show you have arrogant delusional beliefs about your status here. Sorry to break this to you, but, many if not most of us here, especially the scientists here, think you are just an IDIOT.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I have never read any peer reviewed literature you wrote. How could I accept what I never read?

"Scientific consensus isn't about any single individual, moreover, Singer isn't a climate scientist."

I never said scientific consensus is about a single individual. You are confused.

Singer is a retired climate scientist. You tried that argument bef ...[text shortened]... ick up where you left off and claimed only climatologists were climate scientists. He was wrong.

How many of Singer's peer reviewed articles did you read? How many of them concern climate change?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Notice how humy tries to mislead people into thinking I expect others to prove a negative. When someone claims global warming is mostly man made and I say prove it, am I asking them to prove a negative? Nope.
Note that he insulted me with another ad hominem attack indicating his weakness and failure.

I said there were most probably other issues that raised global temps back then AND you can't prove the science was right about CO2 levels then.

You accept scientific analysis that supports your points but don't go into the literature to see if there was refuting evidence.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I said there were most probably other issues that raised global temps back then AND you can't prove the science was right about CO2 levels then.

You accept scientific analysis that supports your points but don't go into the literature to see if there was refuting evidence.

What other issues? If you have a theory share it with us and back it up with science. If you dispute the sediment samples say that you do and back it up with science.
It is ironic you are being anti-science in a feeble attempt to downplay the Pliocene Epoch cause and effect of the global warming back then. I thought you were pro-science. What happened?

Originally posted by @humy
So you admit there is man made global warming?

I always have. I have always claimed it was negligible, but you already knew that. Why are you pretending to be surprised? I have been very consistent about that. Do you want to pretend to be surprised about anything else I have been clear about?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How many of Singer's peer reviewed articles did you read? How many of them concern climate change?

From the link below:

Dr. Singer has published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, including EOS: Transactions of the AGU, Journal of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Science, Nature, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Geophysical Research Letters, and International Journal of Climatology. His editorial essays and articles have appeared in Cosmos, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and many other publications. His accomplishments have been featured in front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life, and U.S. News & World Report

https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer

Your feeble efforts to discredit Singer with false claims he is not a climate scientist have failed. Now you are making a feeble effort to imply he has not written many peer reviewed articles. Another failure!

Originally posted by @humy
WHAT 'peers'? Don't make us laugh. I am not even sure even [b]I can call some people here my 'peers' (and I certainly wouldn't) and at least I have SOME noteworthy science credentials!
Are you a scientist or expert? What are your science credentials?
Do you REALLY believe anyone here takes your word on science as authoritative!? NOBODY here does.
You c ...[text shortened]... , but, many if not most of us here, especially the scientists here, think you are just an IDIOT.[/b]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

You are not a climate scientist and you have no monopoly on facts. You are delusional if you think you can convince people without facts. You have none to support your feeble claims. That is why you always resort to ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I always have. I have always claimed it was negligible, but you already knew that.

Yes, which is why I asked so that I can now ask you;
Are you are asking us to prove the 'negative' that the recent global warming is NOT MAINLY natural?
If so, according to your own logic, that is unreasonable because that is a 'negative' ( + we have already show you the scientific evidence that shows it is probably mainly man made)

Originally posted by @humy
So you are asking us to prove the 'negative' that the recent global warming is NOT mainly natural?
But according to your own logic, that is unreasonable ( + we have already show you the evidence )

I'm asking you to prove your positive that global warming is mostly man made. You made that assertion and I said you were wrong.