Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

[flacaltenn]

Because our conservatives in Congress are so scientific.......

Obama stopped the rise of the oceans, just by winning the Dem nomination.

ThunkProgress loves them those sweeping meaningless statements. NOBODY is denying that the Climate changes. Nobody is denying that the Earth hasn't warmed over the last 1000 yrs.

The debate is over whether 1 or 2 degC from increased CO2 will magically multiply into a 4 or 7 degC change because the Earth's Climate System is unstable and has a death wish.
And secondarily -- how much of that TRIGGER is due to man and how much is due to natural causes purposely underestimated by the perverted search for a politically correct answer..


DO YOU GET THAT PART?? YOUR THEORY requires you to believe that ANY temperature trigger of a couple degrees will set in motion feedbacks that will destroy life on the planet.
When you political retards TRIVIALIZE the debate as those graphics do -- you just demonstrate how little you folks care about the science. DENYING science is settled is FAR PREFERABLE to IGNORING science completely and relying on partisian sound bites.

 

[elektra]

Now these K00ks want people to prove a negative.

Trivial to do. I can easily prove there are no elephants in my living room. Only the logically deficient -- that is, nearly every denier -- say you can't prove a negative.

It is on those who assert that need to provide proof of claim.

Done and done, over and over. That's why the burden of proof is on you now, just as it's on anyone who would want to deny gravity or the round earth theory. So, do it, and collect your easy cash.

mamooth lives in a barn, hence its easy to build strawmen.

 

[Crick]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

8) Show that despite ever higher CO2 levels over the last 15 years, temperatures stopped rising.

 

[Kosh]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

WOW! The ol' prove something does NOT exist!

More proof that the AGW cult is not about science, but promotion of a religion.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

 

[Lumpy 1]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

WOW! The ol' prove something does NOT exist!

More proof that the AGW cult is not about science, but promotion of a religion.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

I tried to rep you but it seems I have to wait...

 

[flacaltenn]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

All seven of your items only indicate that man has contributed to GHouse emissions and that the GHouse effect is solid science.. It IS NOT AGW theory.. They do not state anything about the Magic Multipliers that AMPLIFY the effects of CO2 into the Earth destroying, ocean boiling, hurricane twisting calamities that your religion preach. The temperature run-up during the 20th Century IS NOT particularly significant if you inspect the historical record, and the 1 to 2 degC due to CO2 doubling alone would not even be enough to make a Slow Sunday story on NPR.

You have to have projections that EXCEED the raw warming power of CO2 and believe that the Earth Climate system is unstable and will experience thermal runaway in the presence of any minor forcing. Historical evidence of a suicidal Climate like that -- is not available.

If the debate was over the basics of GHouse physics, we'd have been done with this decades ago..

 

[westwall]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.

Demonstrate with empirical data that the GHG's do as you claim

2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared

Show that the greenhouse effect operates as you claim it does.

3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming

Show that it is occurring. The so called "smoking gun" has yet to appear.

4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance

Please do so.

5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Show that it has not happened before without the benefit of CO2 increases.

6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth

Show that those same frequencies are not dwarfed by the water vapor extant in the atmosphere.

7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Already done.


Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.[/QUOTE]




And it's already been done. Co2 levels are much higher than they were 17 years ago and the temperature is the same.

The world has been MUCH warmer without the benefit of increased CO2. We are STILL not as warm as it was during the MWP.....and there was no industrial revolution to drive that warmth.

You fail.....

 

[bripat9643]

There are numerous ways to falsify AGW. I've listed several before. Let's see:

1) Show that humans have not produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
2) Show that the greenhouse effect is not real - that greenhouse gases do not trap infrared
3) Show that the AMOUNT of infrared that greenhouse gases trap is grossly inadequate to have caused the observed warming
4) Show that the incoming and outgoing radiation at the ToA are equal - that there is no imbalance
5) Show that the world's temperature has not increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
6) Show that there is no overlap between the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 and that radiated by the warmed Earth
7) Show that the frequencies of IR absorbed by CO2 are also absorbed by water vapor and thus there's simply no energy left for the CO2 to affect

Proving ANY of these points would falsify AGW. And I bet you've heard almost every one of these presented here by one denier or another. So why hasn't anyone picked up the $10G?

Because just saying it don't make it so. They need to support their contention with BETTER evidence and BETTER reason than is being used by the mainstream scientists who all accept AGW. And they haven't. And it's pretty close to a perfect guarantee that they haven't because they can't.

Sceptics of the AGW abracadabra don't need to falsify a theory that hasn't been proved. Furthermore, the theory has already been falsified numerous times. Just consider the fact that none of the claims of the AGW Chicken Littles have turned out to be anything close to reality.

BTW, anyone who uses the term "denier" is a jackass in my book. You will be treated accordingly.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[TheJedi]

I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.

Still not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

If that hack James Hansen can not produce this, I full expect that the AGW cult members can not either.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

Hansen is an AGW hack! He lets his belief over ride any science and does not have the source code to prove that CO2 drives climate.

He has his belief system based in neo-Nazi environmentalism.

Hansen is a Hack and I have told him so.

Dude, really? You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The is the best right-wing racket in the game. If it makes sense, it must be a socialist, neo-nazi, eco-terrorist plot to kill Jesus and eat white babies.

LOL

 

[TheJedi]

I have yet seen the AGW cult prove their religion through actual science.

Still not one link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

If that hack James Hansen can not produce this, I full expect that the AGW cult members can not either.

You are not very bright, are you?

I posted this here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/359836-climate-change-resources.html

Start here and educate yourself. If you are not willing to put in the time to actually understand the fucking science, your opinion does not matter one iota. Republican talking points are not science.

From Jake Hansen's Wiki: James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A year later, Hansen joined with Rahmstorf and colleagues comparing climate projections with observations. The comparison is done from 1990 through January 2007 against physics-based models that are independent from the observations after 1990. They show that the climate system may be responding faster than the models indicate. Rahmstorf and coauthors show concern that sea levels are rising at the high range of the IPCC projections, and that it is due to thermal expansion and not from melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.[42]

Following the launch of spacecraft capable of determining temperatures, Roy Spencer and John Christy published the first version of their satellite temperature measurements in 1990. Contrary to climate models and surface measurements, their results showed a cooling in the troposphere.[43] However, in 1998, Wentz and Schabel determined that orbital decay had an effect on the derived temperatures.[44] Hansen compared the corrected troposphere temperatures with the results of the published GISS model, and concluded that the model is in good agreement with the observations, noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming is occurring to what is the rate of global warming, and what should be done about it

If you think this little historical anecdote ended the dissent, you've haven't read much of the story.. That little disagreement was resolved and now BOTH the sat and ground data show that the models are performing miserably.. Largely because the effects of CO2 and exaggerated "accelerations" predicted have failed to track the catastrophic predictions of the 80s and 90s..

MANY of the natural contributions to Climate change have been PURPOSELY underestimated and the "magic multipliers" in your "settled science" are looking more fictitious as time goes on.. What's the temperature anomaly gonna be in 2050???

I didn't it say it settled it. The climate is changing, there is no doubt about that. That's the thing about science. As technology and methods evolve, the numbers can change. No rational person doubts evolution but we keep getting more info that changes how we understand it. No one doubts Newton's Laws of Gravity but even that understanding changes as new discoveries are made.

There is no doubt that our climate is changing. We see this as weather patterns and ocean currents begin to shift. I have poured through all the data. Most of it anyway, over the years, and we are definitely contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. As the frozen tundras and glaciers thaw, methane is released into the atmosphere amplifying he effect. I have seen with my own eyes people lighting mud on fire just under the snow line.

Weather and climate are two very different things. The earth is getting warmer.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress

When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.

Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.

“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” Keating told the College Fix by email. “You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it.”

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real. “They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said.

Keating is the author of the recent book “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” which employs a Socratic-style discussion between three friends over email in a climate change polemic.

He is an idiot. He asks others to prove the negative when he is the asshole with the burden or persuasion and he and his dopey ilk have NEVER shown that global climate cooling, warming, moderation change has anything to do with human-kind.

 

[TheJedi]

Let's add to this for effect:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0]Jefferson Airplane -White Rabbit- - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Crick]

Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change

Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change | ThinkProgress

When not refuting the 97 percent of scientists who believe in human-caused global warming, climate change deniers often draw upon the conspiracy that it’s is a fabricated theory invented by those in a position to gain financially or otherwise from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Texas-based physicist is turning that notion on its head by offering $10,000 of his own money to anyone who can disprove mainstream, accepted climate science.

Dr. Christopher Keating, a physicist who has taught at the University of South Dakota and the U.S. Naval Academy, says in his blog post that the rules are easy: there is no entry fee, participants must be over 18, and the scientific method must be employed.

“Deniers actively claim that science is on their side and there is no proof of man-made climate change,” Keating told the College Fix by email. “You would think that if it was really as easy as the deniers claim that someone, somewhere would do it.”

Keating is planning to post entries on his blog along with comments. He is willing to field a wide array of submissions and is also offering $1,000 to anyone that can provide any scientific evidence at all that climate change isn’t real. “They are even free to find proof on the Internet and cut and paste it,” he said.

Keating is the author of the recent book “Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming,” which employs a Socratic-style discussion between three friends over email in a climate change polemic.

He is an idiot. He asks others to prove the negative when he is the asshole with the burden or persuasion and he and his dopey ilk have NEVER shown that global climate cooling, warming, moderation change has anything to do with human-kind.

It's his money. He can make whatever requirements he likes. And this stuff about proving a negative is nonsense. You all need a little education in basic logic. As Mamooth pointed out, it's trivial to prove there are no elephants in his living room. I listed seven different ways you could falsify AGW. Of course none of them will do so, but that is not because of bad logic. It's because AGW is a good theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

If however the elephant observation includes a prediction that no elephant will be present in the living room this year, THEN you have a more accurate GW analog.... Because the hysteria is about ficticious events hundreds of years into the future..

 

[Crick]

There is no hysteria though I dare say I wouldn't mind a move by the common opinion in that direction. And the theory is not a prediction of future events. It says that AGW has been taking place since 1750 when we started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and began seriously deforesting the planet.

I've twice now listed multiple ways in which you could falsify AGW. Let's try again and get down to the basics:

1) Prove that CO2 does not trap infrared OR that it does not trap any of the infrared that the Earth radiates OR that it is not trapping the infrared already being scooped up by water vapor
2) Prove that humans are not responsible for the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 - that it has some other source
3) Prove that the Earth has not warmed since 1750
4) Prove that some other cause for the observed warming has better evidence and better reasoning than AGW

 

[Kosh]

There is no hysteria though I dare say I wouldn't mind a move by the common opinion in that direction. And the theory is not a prediction of future events. It says that AGW has been taking place since 1750 when we started increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and began seriously deforesting the planet.

I've twice now listed multiple ways in which you could falsify AGW. Let's try again and get down to the basics:

1) Prove that CO2 does not trap infrared OR that it does not trap any of the infrared that the Earth radiates OR that it is not trapping the infrared already being scooped up by water vapor
2) Prove that humans are not responsible for the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750 - that it has some other source
3) Prove that the Earth has not warmed since 1750
4) Prove that some other cause for the observed warming has better evidence and better reasoning than AGW

Another prove a negative request from the AGW cult:

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Your repetition of these graphics and text is starting to look like SPAM.

As to proving a negative, here are three perfectly valid means of doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

 

[Kosh]

Your repetition of these graphics and text is starting to look like SPAM.

As to proving a negative, here are three perfectly valid means of doing so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Well if it looks like spam, because I use real science to refute your AGW religion, then who is the true spammer?

It means that you have nothing to refute real science other than AGW scripture.

Where is that link to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate?

Ever going to post it?

or are you finally going to admit that you can not?