Trump's NASA admin Bridenstine changes his tune on AGW

[Sunsettommy]

SSDD writes a very specific question, that no warmists can answer directly. They do what Crick and Crepitus does, a generalized vague reply that doesn't pinpoint the difference between Natural variability and the AGW conjecture.

" challenge you to provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability."

Crepitus make clear he has no idea what the NULL Hypothesis means in relation to his silly dishonest misleading post he made in reply to SSDD specific question.

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Hardly any skeptic dispute that CO2 absorbs IR, it is that it actually absorbs so little of in the first place being mostly OUTSIDE of the main Terrestrial IR outflow.

No the calculations are not even close since the IPCC in EVERY report post a PER DECADE warming rate based on the CO2 warm forcing ability coupled with CO2 emission scenarios. Here is the one from 2007 IPCC report you have been shown several times.

Their temperature projection clearly outlined here:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

This means it should warm at least .30C per decade, but the temperature data are showing about half that rate which totally destroys your declaration you wrote,

"The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming."

That is a truly dumb statement.

You made a truly stupid claim since Nature emits about 96% of the yearly emission total, Mankind the other 4% and not all of it from fossil fuel either,you wrote this big lie:

"The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion"

You are so messed up here.

 

[Crepitus]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Hardly any skeptic dispute that CO2 absorbs IR, it is that it actually absorbs so little of in the first place being mostly OUTSIDE of the main Terrestrial IR outflow.

No the calculations are not even close since the IPCC in EVERY report post a PER DECADE warming rate based on the CO2 warm forcing ability coupled with CO2 emission scenarios. Here is the one from 2007 IPCC report you have been shown several times.

Their temperature projection clearly outlined here:

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

This means it should warm at least .30C per decade, but the temperature data are showing about half that rate which totally destroys your declaration you wrote,

"The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming."

That is a truly dumb statement.

You made a truly stupid claim since Nature emits about 96% of the yearly emission total, Mankind the other 4% and not all of it from fossil fuel either,you wrote this big lie:

"The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion"

You are so messed up here.

I gave you 6 with links to others.

If you can't understand them that isn't my problem, but you can't deny that I gave them to you.

I reiterate: Don't Be Stupider Than You Have To Be.

It's good advice, you should take it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your link starts of with this bullcrap:

"Six irrefutable pieces of evidence that prove climate change is real"

No one here disputes that climate change is real

"1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

I could stop right there since the website YOU linked from has destroyed their credibility with a bald faced lie, but will plod on a little longer to another highly misleading claim:

4. Temperature

"The latest: 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded, with global average temperatures reaching 1.69°F above the 20th-century average."

Only ignorant warmists like you fall for this media created bullcrap since that is NOT a valid criteria the IPCC measures, they go by the Per Decade Warming rate, which is .30C/ decade, while temperature data show HALF that rate, a natural warming rate almost identical to other three back to the 1800's which is about .16C per decade.

My post talks about it

They used the Arrhenius 1896 paper, while ignoring his updated 1906 paper that dialed back his CO2 warming formula and stated that it is GOOD to have more CO2 into the atmosphere.

6. Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent

"The polar ice caps have existed for millions of years. Not only are they a reliable indicator of climate change, but they reflect sunlight. That high albedo (reflectivity) helps deflect solar radiation, cooling off Earth. As the ice caps shrink, they stop cooling the poles. The less ice at the poles, the faster global warming will occur. In addition, the ice caps interact with animals (they’re habitat for everything from polar bears to penguins) and influence far-away weather. And as ice caps melt, they increase sea levels around the world."

What a dishonest and stupid claim since they leave out 95% of the Holocene history of Sea ice. There were times in the early Holocene of little to no sea ice in the arctic that lasted a few thousand years. The last time it happened was during the MWP time frame.

The world rolled on and so did the Polar Bears, who are currently enjoying the highest population size in recorded history.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect is easily demonstrable in the lab and the calculated warming produced by the increased CO2 matches observations. No other cause has ever been found for the observed warming. The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 clearly show that every drop of CO2 above the 280 ppm pre-industrial level originated from fossil fuel combustion (ie, anthropogenically).

Refute ANY of that.

Idiot.

Yep....seen all the greenhouse in a jar experiments...they demonstrate everything from the heat of compression to saturation...none of them demonstrate a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

As to no other cause being found...that is how little we know about earth's climate...warming and cooling are always happening and we don't have the faintest idea of why...there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 other than the fact that CO2 follows temperature due to outgassing from the oceans.

 

[SSDD]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

Are you still here?

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

 

[Crepitus]

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.


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?

Like most dupes, you lack the intellectual wattage to take your own advice.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

Translation: I can't make a decent counterpoint to your sourced replies, therefore start ignoring him will make me feel better about it.

You wont even admit they LIED to you here:

""1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

It is easy to prove they LIED to you.

You are pathetic.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

Translation: I can't make a decent counterpoint to your sourced replies, therefore start ignoring him will make me feel better about it.

You wont even admit they LIED to you here:

""1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

View attachment 197607

It is easy to prove they LIED to you.

You are pathetic.

Your translator needs some serious work.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

Translation: I can't make a decent counterpoint to your sourced replies, therefore start ignoring him will make me feel better about it.

You wont even admit they LIED to you here:

""1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

View attachment 197607

It is easy to prove they LIED to you.

You are pathetic.

Your translator needs some serious work.

Your inability for rational thinking needs to be addressed.

You have no counterpoint to offer, thus make truly stupid replies is all you have left.

 

[Crepitus]

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Your very replies make clear you have no clue what SSDD and I am talking about.

You completely ignored post 26, that addressed some of your 6 things, which doesn't even address the question SSDD asked you for.

That's because I ignore most of you posts. They tend to be useless drivel.

Translation: I can't make a decent counterpoint to your sourced replies, therefore start ignoring him will make me feel better about it.

You wont even admit they LIED to you here:

""1. CO2 in the atmosphere"

No one dispute that the level of CO2 is increasing, but contains a flat out LIE

"Despite sinks that remove CO2 from soil, forests, and the ocean, industrial-era emissions mean that CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been in hundreds of millions of years."

This is LYING fella as shown here that for around 95% of the last 1 Billion years CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than now:

View attachment 197607

It is easy to prove they LIED to you.

You are pathetic.

Your translator needs some serious work.

Your inability for rational thinking needs to be addressed.

You have no counterpoint to offer, thus make truly stupid replies is all you have left.

Lol, no.

I just know it's pointless to engage with a slavering fanatic like you.

 

[SSDD]

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.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

Are you still here?

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.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Most of them are. They are to heavily invested in AGW to take a chance of learning that it is all smoke and mirrors.
It's good advice, you should take it.

Like most dupes, you lack the intellectual wattage to take your own advice.

I gave you exactly what you asked for.

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.

He is completely unaware on what the NULL Hypothesis is and why it applies to the comments at hand.

 

[SSDD]

Actually no, I'm not. You apparently don't understand it though if you thinking applies here.

Since you don't seem to be able to provide anything like observed measured evidence in support of AGW over natural variability, it applies precisely here.