You have just engaged in it. On the relationship between CO2 and global surface temperature, they are. Which are far more important than CO2. No, methane is also not a significant factor in climate. And no reason to address. Right: when the oceans heat up, they evaporate faster, increasing water vapor and cloudiness, which increases the earth's albedo, cooling it. Enough. No, there is only dismissal of solar activity as a climate factor despite the strong historical correlation of global surface temperature with solar activity. I already told you: leading and trailing correlation coefficients. No, the earth's warming and cooling cycles clearly confirm that temperature affects CO2 much more than vice versa. CO2 therefore cannot be a significant factor determining the earth's surface temperature.
You only provide cites of propaganda and nonscience. Anyone can look out their window and confirm that I am right and you are wrong.
You can always cherry pick papers that can be presented by media as being denialist. Let's remember that there are tens of thousands of papers on this subject, and that the vast majority of scientists who study this topic agree that human activity IS warming Earth, primarily by emitting greenhouse gasses.
But you don't need to -- and using the term "denialist" only proves you have no actual empirical science to offer, just the same old disingenuous, disgraceful, and despicable propaganda. That's just another example of your side's typical disingenuous propaganda techniques: you make a claim that is modest and uncontroversial, and that climate realists actually agree with, and you pretend it is equivalent to your nonscience claim that CO2 is the principal factor governing the earth's surface temperature.
That's your excuse for ignoring science? Where DO you get your information concerning how this Earth (and universe) work?
NO. That is not MY claim. That is the claim of the vast majority of scientists working in the various fields of climate science. You need to direct your charges against NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and hundreds of other organizations from around the world who study climate.
No it isn't. And we know how that "consensus" has been manufactured. The organizations in question do not study climate, they just promote the CO2 narrative.
That's not an answer to the question of your sources. Or, are you claiming that YOU are doing world wide climatological experimentation that is repeatable?
Nobody is doing world wide climatological experimentation that is repeatable. It doesn't exist. The rest of us are relying on solid studies that all seem to disprove the screaming mimi's in the climate panic world.
We're 25 pages in on this particular thread alone. And you have yet to quantify the "legions" of climate scientists that are backing this "world wide natural science". Tell you what, you cite some proof for the stuff you claim sometime and we'll see how it holds up. I won't be holding my breath.
You have to do this work yourself. When I point to NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and post literally a hundred other world wide science organizations who agree with AGW, you just ignore it. And, you cite nothing. I'm tired of you ridiculous game.
Yes it is. I'm reading the most relevant research and subjecting it to the test of scientific logic. (Actually, I don't read much of the CO2-narrative "research" any more, as I have found it uniformly irrelevant, incompetent and/or dishonest, and a waste of my time.)
Here's the logical problem with your "sources" gambit: much of the replicable, peer-reviewed, empirical research that disproves the CO2 narrative is decades -- even many decades -- old, and well established, such as Angstrom's century-old experiment that showed adding CO2 to ordinary atmospheric air does not significantly alter its infrared absorption properties because there is already so much water vapor and CO2 in it. This is a simple result that can be replicated today by any competent physics undergraduate with access to ordinary lab equipment. Whenever I cite this source to disprove the CO2 narrative, CO2-obsessed fools and propagandists shriek that it is out of date, demand recent peer-reviewed sources (ignoring the fact that you can't get a peer-reviewed journal to publish replication of uncontroversial, century-old research), blah, blah, blah, and point me to CO2-centered nonscience propaganda websites that dishonestly pretend to refute Angstrom's results but actually don't, because they can't. Peer-reviewed research has to say something new, and there is nothing new about the fact that CO2 from fossil fuel use cannot significantly affect the lower atmosphere's IR absorption properties and therefore the earth's surface temperature. So you can get thousands of papers published on novel computer model results that do not affect the accuracy of Angstrom's century-old empirical result, creating an illusion of scientific "consensus" for the CO2 narrative. But the reality is that it is all nothing but deceitful and disingenuous nonscience.
OK, so you don't have any interest in what science says about data that scientists have gathered. Right?
I see. I'm no longer interested, as personal evaluations just can not be accepted over and above what scientists are finding.
Your statement is that you are second guessing science - picking and choosing which parts you want and coming up with the conclusion you wanted in the first place.
