Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 79,564
- 84,084
- 3,615
Lol, good thing I'm not pretending then.Are you still here?I gave you exactly what you asked for.I gave you 6 with links to others.
You provided something...it wasn't even close to what you were asked to provide, but don't worry about it, the evidence you were asked for simply does not exist. You typify the warmer mentality. You provide evidence that the climate changes...what you didn't provide, and what you were specifically asked for was evidence that favors the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability.
What you showed us is that you don't even have the slightest idea of what evidence that we are causing the global climate to change would even look like. Anything is apparently enough to fool you.
I reiterate: Don't Be Stupider Than You Have To Be.
Look in a mirror guy...Like I said, you are apparently fooled by anything. Apparently in your mind, evidence that the climate is changing is also evidence that we are causing it...that would mean that in your mind, you don't think the climate ever changed prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Is that what you think?
It's good advice, you should take it.
Like most dupes, you lack the intellectual wattage to take your own advice.
You are thrashing around trying to find a reason to say I didn't
You failed.
Go home.
More evidence that this whole topic is way over your head. The very fact that you believe you gave me what I asked for is observable evidence that you really don't even know what evidence that the bit of climate change we have seen is something that we have caused rather than simple natural variability. It would seem that any evidence of climate change is evidence in your mind that we have caused it. You see evidence that the climate has changed and ASSUME that we are the cause.
Are you able to grasp the concept that evidence of change is not even close to evidence for the cause of the change?
Here is a clue for you...evidence that we are causing climate change would look different from natural variability. After all, what is the point of crying over climate change if what we are causing looks just like natural variability...and that being said, how would you distinguish between what we caused and natural variability if what we caused looks just like natural variability?
I would understand if you continue to opt out of trying to provide evidence that doesn't exist. Providing evidence of change and assuming that it is evidence that we are causing the change just makes you look stupid and that is about all the evidence you will ever be able to provide...evidence of change with nothing more than an unsupportable assumption as to the cause of the change.
I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a fair try...in fact, it failed miserably. You did succeed in demonstrating what sort of tripe passes for evidence in that little mind of yours. Little wonder that you are just another warmist dupe.
Pretending intellectual superiority only works if there are no people around to see how abysmally you have failed to deliver on the request that was put to you. When you don't know, either say you don't know or walk away. At least you save a bit of face...sticking around pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about when everyone around you knows that you don't is just one more example of being stupider than you have to be.