As to the "majority of climate scientists"

Lol YES!! OF COURSE IT IS!!!

That being said, this is exactly how agw differs from religion. It's true, and all evidence points to the fact that it's true. The same way we know the earth is round.

 

I can tell you what will happen if you jump off a building tomorrow. I don't need science for that.

 

Specifically, that model is F=G((m1*m2)/r^2) but, that is 'just' a model based on things that have happened in the past.

 

No, I'm not trying to say anything. I said exactly what I typed nothing more.

I'm asking you questions that should be easy to answer to test your ability to answer them. The fact that you fabricate strawman fallacies and try to insult me answers my question.

 

Which is repeatable so the metrics of gravity are already understood. AGW is not falsifiable like the effects of gravity are. I hope you understand you are using a logical fallacy.

 

You aren't really asking any questions.

 

So you could easily explain it like I can explain why a disc or cubic Earth is impossible.

So why can't you?

Amen brother.

 

No, I'm not. And you are misusing that term. But let's carry your line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. According to astrophysicists, the sun will burn out one day. Do you believe that?

 

I've asked quite a few that sould be easy for you to answer. But you continually run from them.

 

Based on experimentation, something that cannot be done with AGW.

 

Based on observation and hypothesis but not falsifiable because no experiment can be made to prove it other than first principles.

 

First of all, how would you easily explain that a flat earth is impossible?
Next, if I can't easily and quickly explain to you how an operating system and the internet works, then I must be wrong that they do work?

 

So, we shouldn't believe that the sun will one day burn out?

 

As it is irrelevant to the current discussion, you again are using logical fallacy as your argument.

 

Easy, do you want me to show you?

No not at all, you just wouldn't really understand it.

 

We look at how objects behaved in the past, build models to explain them, and see how they fit, then drow conclusions going forward. It's exactly the same. We can see how carbon effected climate in the past, build a model and extrapolate.

 

Not really since computer models need to be curve fitted to reflect past climate but then the past climate is based on proxies which have their own problems.

 

No, it isn't. It's the same thing. We are using the science we know to extrapolate events in the future. If we claim that only things we can try have any validity, then we have to throw out vast swaths of science. And, really everything we know.

 

Do it

Then try me.

 

No one in their right mind thinks gravity is the same as AGW. You do outline one of the major issues with AGW science, the science we know. There are numerous known unknowns and unknown unknowns in AGW science.

 

That's just an increase in variables. Nothing more, that's why it takes a lot of smart people who know a lot.

 

It's all still science. More variables, that's all. There are numerous unknowns in many many areas of science, but we know enough to know when to take it seriously.

 

Another logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Smart people make mistakes all the time which is why most peer reviewed papers rarely stand the test of time.

 

Yes, but which science? The science you agree with or the science you don't?

 

I'm sorry, are you part of a schism within the AGW faithful that doesn't read? Is that it?