Can I get even one left winger to view the climate of the planet?

If you prefer your life to be based on facts, you wouldn't deny science and believe in conspiracy theories.

 

Climate never "stays that way" because something is always changing it.

 

There's no facts in AGW, there is only correlation is causation, speculation and models based on skewed information.

 

Make a microchip I double dare you. If you can't, computers must be fake.

 

So what natural process is responsible for a 20C per millennium rate of change?

 

It would be extreme hubris for anyone to claim they know exactly how and why climate does what it does. Scientist still debate the cause of the summer that never was.

 

First, I'm glad all of our most beloved scientists who paved the way for the scientific insights we have today didn't take this quitters attitude.

Second, your supposition that global warming cannot be caused by anthroprogenic forces basically boils down to a "nuh uh" argument then. You say you don't know why climate does what it does and yet you're certain humans aren't playing a role. That paints your comment about AGW lacking facts like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Straw man argument. I never said and most if not all skeptics will never say that man cant have some climate effect with C02. The debate is if it's a miniscule insignificant effect that is overwhelmed and swept aside by a plethora of natural causes both known and unknown or is it as alarmist would have you believe, a game changer that overwhelms and sweeps aside a plethora of natural climate change causes.

 

True, you are more likely to die walking out of your house than CAGW.

 

There are no facts that something like gravity would make an object fall to the ground; it's all a Theory of General Relativity...

 

Climate change deniers, creationists and flat Earthers all have one thing in common, they use conspiracy theories to support their positions, while claiming to support science. If your position requires a conspiracy, than it is not a very strong position.

 

One thing is certain, those captured by the dogma use name calling and have absolutely no idea about science or the scientific method. For them this is more about feelings and politics.

 

Gravity is a law based on observable facts. "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation". AGW is a hypothesis based on correlation with no observable facts.

 

To be fair, I think there's a huge difference between Hoosier8 and AFM's position on AGW than most other posters on here. They are what I would describe as true skeptics with well reasoned arguments. You might not agree with them, but at least they approach the issue with facts and make you question your own facts. That's good. So lumping these posters (and those like them) in with Flat Earthers is something I take offense to,

 

"Conspiracy" another straw man. If you keep needing straw men to make your argument then it's not a very strong position

 

I don't know about this NOAA experiment, it might be a red herring, but it's something you can do at home: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/lesson_plans/Modeling the Greenhouse Effect.pdf

I'm sure there has been a bit more sophisticated experiments done. One constantly running experiment, however, is called the atmosphere. Kinda' like Gravity Probe B with GR.

 

It is a theory because they don't know what creates it but it can be predicted what will happen exactly every time, much like orbital mechanics which rely on gravity and unlike the climate. The hypothesis of AGW has things happen they do not predict and most of what has been predicted fails the test so AGW alleged 'theory' is not reliable.

 

So who exactly are these flat earthers and what exactly makes you label them thus?

 

Once again I live by facts not hypothesis. Fact is if I drop a brick on your head I may need to drive you to the hospital. Hypothesis is by doing so I will warm the planet.

 

I learned about General Relativity by watching TV commercials. And since we can't know with certainty about the position and velocity of all the massive objects in the universe at the same time it too should be relegated to a mere hypothesis.

 

You wouldn't waste the gas as it would attribute to GW.

 

I wouldn't waste the brick, your hard head might break it.

 

Logical fallacy. Are you saying we cannot predict how an object will fall based on gravity or that we cannot know the orbital mechanics of those things around us that matter? Do things occasionally fall up?

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Never said we couldn't predict things, but if we expand the scale of space things should appear to fall up.