Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

You still seem confused about what a white flag is. I directly refuted your argument. Your only rebutal to the proven science you’ve been given is “Nuh uh”. That is invalid. You need to present your scientific evidence that shows the current scientific evidence we have regarding climate change is incorrect.

 

So, does that mean I can finally put the warning of a second ICE AGE behind me now? I mean these same turd bird were scaring the hell out of us back in the beginning of the 70's about how crops weren't gonna grow, starvation, and with already Jimmy Carter gas rationing we were most likely going to all freeze to death so starving really took a back seat to burning Furniture just to make it thru the dreadful sub zero grip of death

 

Hey no fair! You moved the data graph to the left to far! Global warming only started in 1979 ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

You revealed that you don’t understand the scientific method. That’s a white flag.

 

You still seem confused about what a white flag is. I directly refuted your argument. Your only rebutal to the proven science you’ve been given is “Nuh uh”. That is invalid. You need to present your scientific evidence that shows the current scientific evidence we have regarding climate change is incorrect.

 

White flag part two.

 

Ok lady

 

Thanks, but I figured your question was being facetious. Humans are obviously part of the currently existing plants and animals and arguably stand to lose the most, certainly the most from an economics standpoint, from the impacts of AGW.

 

And yet every single recognized national or international group of scientists has an official policy position that is in favor of the basic tenets of AGW.

 

By measuring the isotopes of the CO2 and realizing that nearly all of the new CO2 ehich gets added yearly to the upper atmosphere comes from the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

To the 2nd point, do you accept or reject that increasing the amount of a greenhouse gas (all other variables remaining constant) will result in an increased temperature?

 

And none of those organizations nor anyone else has proven that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming.

 

Humans benefit from global emissions.

Source “Climate Economics - Economic Analysis of Climate, Climate Change, and Climate Policy” 2nd Edition, Richard S. J. Tol - 2019 - pages 93 - 105.

 

So your desire to stop climate change is just primitive evolutionary coded survival instinct? Or is it something more?

It’s interesting to me how as a species we think so much of ourselves that we believe we are the pinnacle of evolutionary process. So much ego that we think we should stop or slow the evolutionary process at this moment in time. Yet our response to AGW is classic Neanderthal (or even bestial) fight or flight response. Fight climate change with authoritarianism and money or flight to colonize Mars.

If we have truly evolved past behaving like mere beasts, wouldn’t it be more logical to work towards evolutionary facilitation rather than actively trying to stop it?

What makes me or a Rafflesia flower special in comparison to a trilobite or Homo erectus?

 

If you think something is impossible to prove, then you will never believe it has been proven.

 

Right over your head. How do you propose to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration to determine if the temperature goes down and the how do you propose to increase it again to determine if the the temperature goes up ???

All other evidence is circumstantial and correlation does not prove causation.

 

Talk to China....as for humans, what about solar flares, volcanic activity etc. Do they have ANY influence?

 

Do you accept or reject that decreasing the amount of a greenhouse gas (all other variables remaining constant) will result in an decreased temperature?[/

That is something that is impossible to prove because the experiment is impossible to conduct.

 

According to some alarmists if it were not for AGW we would be in another ice age now. What is curious is that they are alarmed about AGW but in the same breath claim that AGW is saving us from the next ice age.

 

You still seem confused about what a white flag is. I directly refuted your argument. Your only rebutal to the proven science you’ve been given is “Nuh uh”. That is invalid. You need to present your scientific evidence that shows the current scientific evidence we have regarding climate change is incorrect.

 

It is up to those proposing the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions result in the current global warming. That is how the scientific method works. Your refusal to acknowledge that the scientific method must be used to prove the hypothesis is a white flag. Happy waving !!!

 

And we have the data and experimentation which confirms human CO2 emissions cause warming. Your rebuttal this far has been “Nuh uh”. That is invalid. You need to present your scientific evidence that the current data we have is incorrect.

 

Keep waving !!!

 

“The hypothesis that the current warming is caused by increasing human CO2 emissions cannot be scientifically proven.” (AFM)

“The only way to scientifically prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing our current warming is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere which is impossible to do.” (AFM)

“It is impossible because the climate cannot be put into a test tube. That’s basic science and that is the scientific method.” (AFM)

“You would fist have to prove that human created CO2 represents the majority of CO2 in our atmosphere then prove CO2 is the direct cause of climate change.” (guavaball)


We cannot remove the cancer, kill the patient, before using the scientific method to determine a safe way to either remove it or destroy it. We can figure out what causes something without removing it first. On a world that has a majority of CO2, see Venus, we do not have to prove humans or some other little green men created it before we can prove it is one hell of a greenhouse.

There is nothing whatsoever in the scientific method about removing the CO2 from Venus to determine the greenhouse exists.

Until you and others learn how the most basic science works, the scientific method, we cannot proceed past it.


https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2743/the-scientific-method-and-climate-change-how-scientists-know/

 

Still haven't answered my question. How do you prove man is the primary source of climate change especially after what you admitted about CO2?