Is climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

I was reading one opinion that cow farts not the cars omissions is the reason being global warming.

 

The I suggest you read more widely and eschew opinion for fact

 

You don't need zero carbon emission to save the planet. It is impossible. Maybe 25% reduce will be good idea?

 

I said i was reading. I didn't say i believe it was right or wrong.

 

Not at all. You are not changing the meaning of a marine climate or a desert climate in any way.

Climate cannot change. It has no quantitative value.

 

That's why the global warming alarmists switched to climate change which is completely meaningless and non quantifiable as you point out.

 

Correct.

Those are just buzzwords, which Alarmists tend to circularly define or leave undefined (both meaningless).

Alarmists have yet to explain to me precisely how a climate "changes". They are unable to do so because climate is not a quantitative value. There's no way to measure a "change" of something that is entirely subjective and non quantifiable.

 

That is not enlightening in the least, to be charitable.

How the hell can anyone recognize what you fail to articulate?

 

What a loaded question. Climate change is natural and expected but like anything else it can be negatively affected by mankind from expelling waste into the air. And don't accuse me of nuthin. Just stating scientific fact.

 

And my cat can possibly type out King Lear tomorrow morning.

 

No, it was a very valid question.

Define "climate change". Describe precisely how climate (a completely subjective term that holds no quantitative value) "changes"?

Define "waste".

No such thing. There is nothing "scientific" about a fact. A fact is simply an assumed predicate. It is useful for speeding up conversations. A fact is not a proof nor a universal truth.

 

Why don't you educate yourself? I am not here to educate you. And I refuse to become your encyclopedia.

 

That’s ^^^ what global warming alarmists always say. Why don’t you believe my propaganda.

 

Doesn't make any difference deniers will go the way of the dinosaurs... and young earthers.

 

I have.

Why are you here?

Use of buzzwords results in void arguments. Encyclopedias are not science.

 

There are many alarmists on this forum who deny science but embrace the CO2 emissions warming meme and refuse to educate themselves with regard to the fact that global warming is beneficial.

 

[

We've been over this before.

Only one economist says that. You're cherrypicking one economist out of the whole world. Your failure to mention that is deliberately misleading.

What's more, it's a mark of pseudoscience to ignore the data you don't like and focus solely on the data you do like. You're clearly doing that now, revealing you to be a pseudoscience devotee.

 

Climate: Long term weather patterns. Includes temperature, precipitation and wind patterns.

If temperature, precipitation and wind patterns change over the long term, the climate is changing.

You're claiming you don't understand something that a first-grader can understand.

So, the question becomes are you trolling, or are you less intelligent than a first-grader? That's a valid question, since it's necessary to know that in order to respond to you.

The long term temperature average goes up or down. Precipitation levels go up or down. Winds change.

Again, this is something that a first grader can understand. If you can't, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

True. They've never proved that CO2-emissions have anything other than an insignificant effect on the climate.

 

Some issues here. One, weather does not have a pattern. Weather is a random event. Random events do not have patterns. Two, "long term" is not clearly defined. What is considered "long term"? Why is that? Three, weather is not quantifiable.

See, climate is a subjective word used to describe the prevailing conditions of a particular location. It holds no quantitative value. How does something with no quantitative value "change", exactly? Even if a desert disappears somewhere or appears elsewhere, a desert climate is still a desert climate. Climate has not changed.

No it isn't. See above.

Insult Fallacy. See above.

False Dichotomy Fallacy.
Insult Fallacy.

No it's not. It's a question rooted in logical fallacies.

Also, you've now refuted yourself regarding the bolded text.

Define "long term". Average of what, exactly?

Precipitation is not weather. Wind is not weather. They are parts of what we call weather, but are not weather as a whole.

Insult Fallacy.

Try valid argumentation next time.

 

Sure they do. They have means and variations. There's this whole branch of math called "Statistics" that deals with it. Did your conspiracy blogs not mention that?

So?

Oh, you're just trying to fuzz up the issue with meaningless nonsense. If "long term" was defined exactly, you'd have made up a reason why that was bad, as your purpose is deflection and obfuscation. I hope you don't embarrass yourself trying to deny it.

See? That's why it's reasonable to ask whether you're trolling, or whether you're less intelligent than a first-grader. First-graders understand that things like temperature, precipitation and wind can be measured. Yet here you are, saying they can't. Thus, the "Troll or ignorant?" question is valid, especially given that you haven't provided any alternate explanation for your bizarre behavior.

Notice how even the other deniers won't jump up on this stupid wagon with you? You're embarrassing them. That's what happens when you try to reshape reality to fit your religion.

 

WRONG. Means and variations are NOT trends. Weather is a random event. Random events have no trends.

So, theories of science MUST be accessible, quantifiable, specific, and produce a specific result.

No, I just know what the requirements of a theory of science are.

Insult Fallacy. Insults are not arguments.

Correct.

Never said any such thing. I've simply said that global temperature cannot be measured within any usable accuracy due to the possible variance in temperature per sq mile being too high (this is where Statistics comes into play). I've never once said that temperature at a specific location at a specific time cannot be measured. At least be honest about my argumentation.

No, the question is quite literally both a false dichotomy fallacy and an insult fallacy. Arguments containing fallacies are invalid argumentation.

Silence does not equal disagreement.

Not at all.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this, not me.

 

Climate change predates humanity.

 

So do forest fires.

 

CO2 is just about the only thing that humanity pumps into our atmosphere that has a net-benefit. If humanity is going to continue to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, we are going to need a warmer, wetter world with atmospheric CO2 between 1200ppm-1600ppm.