What is fair to say, then? Scientists have given a very definite answer - one which is spelled out as clearly as it can be.
(a) Do you know what they have to say?
(b) If not, do you accept what they have to say?
You have already admitted the answer to (a) is no. So, either it’s fair to say that you don’t know but you’re willing to accept what they have to say, or you don’t know but you’re rejecting their findings anyway.
This is a simple yes or no question.
Let me put my answer in the proper context.
Edit: Forgot my actual response!
What are some (alleged) negative effects, and at what temperatures do these effects show up?
So you have no idea what scientists have to say, but you will disagree if they don’t agree with you?
Are you trying to look like an idiot, or are you just trying to hold off in hopes that I’ll forget about the queued questions? What are some (alleged) negative effects, and at what temperatures do these effects show up?
Per whose message are you not responding to the question? I’ve specifically asked you 4 times, 3 times in direct response to you, for the missing information.
Note: you still have not yet responded.
What are some (alleged) negative effects, and at what temperatures do these effects show up?
Okay. So your answer to (2b) is that you don’t know what science says, but you don’t have an opinion either. Is that correct?
“My” theory is described in post #1.
You have to understand that any attempt to make it seem like I have been evading the questions is undermined by the fact that there is a 1,551 word post which was requested by you and addressed specifically to you which answers in detail each of the 5 questions I posed.
As a matter of fact, pending confirmation of your answer in (2b) and an actual response for (3), I intend to begin by quoting my first post to demonstrate that not only are you scientifically illiterate, but that you are that way by choice - the information is available to you, but you choose not to read it.
Edit: Prolonging the thread by continuing to evade the yes or no questions posed to you will only delay, not stave off, my response.
brazil84, you seem to be missing the thread of discussion. To recap:
You gave your account of AGW theory: “It’s my understanding that, according to people on your side of the debate, some large percentage of scientists is predicting with a high degree of confidence that if CO2 emissions continue unabated, there will be substantial negative effects on human well being in terms of climate change by the end of this century.”
You then asked aptronym to tell you “what details are missing” from this account. What you don’t seem to realize is that he has answered you, and his answer is this: Your account does not specify the (alleged) negative effects, and it does not specify the temperature at which these effects show up. Those are the details missing from your account. Your question has been answered.
Are you saying that catastrophic AGW theory predicts a certain, minimum level of temperature increase? If so, please tell me what that number is. Also, please tell me what negative effects are missing from my account.
per tomndebb’s post, I will not respond to your games and evasions.
No, if he’s read the IPCC report, he’s pointing out there’s a chart which lists all the possible consequences (negative and positive) and the temperature ranges where they show up.
This is also the same chart that is referenced in post #1 of this thread.
A very convinient excuse for you not to answer questions asked of you from post #1. It would seem strange that the person who refuses to answer questions asked for 348 posts would be the one accusing the question asker of playing games and evasion.
brazil84, the only evasions and 99% of the games have been yours. Since you do not appear to be interested in an honest debate and the question was directed to you, this thread is pointless.