Of course not.Just address the statement Iāve quoted three times now from your own link. Do you disavow it?
It is evidence that, along with similar proxy evidence and the superior evidence of instrument data from all over the planet, shows that the world has been getting warmer at an unprecedented rate since the Industrial Revolution.So what if it is substantially warmer in that one region? What does that prove other than that climate changes? I donāt think anyone with half a brain needed that proven to them.
That was never the purpose of their study. The only purpose for which I selected that study was to refute your previous claim by making use of contemporaneous dendrochronological data.I didnāt interpret it that way at all. Mainly because I donāt think the authors are fools. It would take a fool to say that such localized data indicates anything about āglobal warmingā
Context, young man, context.How did I misinterpret it? I quoted it exactly. How are you interpreting it thatās different from the words that I quoted?
My intent with the term here is to indicate theories held as valid by a majority consensus: the "mainstream"; not an unusual usage. AGW is held as valid by an exceptionally large proportion of actively researching climate scientists. AGW is mainstream science..āMainstream scienceā is a meaningless phrase. Science is constantly evolving, constantly seeking new information.
Science always seeks new knowedge but due to the enormous success of Francis Bacon's scientific method, great swaths of it these days do not change. And the longer science is unable to falsify a theory, the more closely it begins to resemble facts. And, relatively speaking, AGW IS brand new. Newton didn't develop it as he did the work in Principia, 337 years ago, and which is still held valid in non-relativistic circumstances.Thatās what real science does.
What evidence drove you to a "realization" that it was pseudo science?What you are talking about is dogma and not science. I developed an abysmal opinion of the dogma of climate change, when I realize that it was nothing more than the latest pseudoscientific apocalyptic scam, heavily funded by governments around the world as a way to maintain control over their population.
What evidence drove you to a "realization" that it was a scam?
What evidence drove you to a "realization" that its purpose was to maintain governmental control of populations?
I've already told you and everyone here already knows. The only thing that really matters is that I have had all that coursework and used it professionally while you have done neither.I assume youāre wanting to tell us your awesome credentials in physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Go ahead, Iāll wait.
That is false. And what does "...some have made an apocalyptic religion..." do if not attack people who disagree with you?You create OP that always consist of a personal attack on people, that disagree with you.
I start name calling under a few specific circumstances: bad science, no science, conjectures that fail a basic sanity test and liars. And unless my issue with a poster has already been repeatedly demonstrated, I make certain to demonstrate what they have done before I apply an appropriate sobriquet.That is your opener. Then further name-calling, and personal attacks on anyone who questions you. So yes, I agree when people run out of science they fall on personal attacks.
That you think so, like virtually EVERYTHING you think to be so - or at least SAY you think to be so - means absolutely nothing to me.You, Crick, are the poster boy for that.
You provided a link to peer reviewed research for the first time in this forum since at least 01 January 2023. That research did not show what you thought it showed, but you did get the link up.Before I bother finding you peer review reviewed research on global warming, not counting the peer reviewed research you provided that said the opposite of what you want us to believe, how about you Admit that you asked me to provide reviewed research about humanity, thriving during the Ice Age and I did?
Or even if all they did was make the attempt.Just common courtesy to say thank you when someone gives you exactly what you asked for, isnāt it?
Last edited: