That is one of those claims that is impossible to support. It might be better to say, “None of the scientific evidence that is claimed to prove AGW is valid”, or “there is an almost complete lack of scientific evidence for human caused global climate change”. Or maybe, “I find the scientific support for AGW to not exist”.
More bullshit pseudo-science from a blog with no credibility.
You need to support your argument. Trying to get us ti argue with a dead scientists isn’t going to go very far at all.
Again, WHAT evidence? What do you claim is evidence? How are you supporting your claims? Just repeating the same thing over and over is meaningless chatter. It’s a science debate. use science, logic, facts and reason. They will all be welcomed, even by your opponents.
I think I figured out what is wrong with your rhetoric, your approach in general.
You don’t actually know what you are talking about. This is an impossible situation in a debate, as you can’t understand the basics, so it’s impossible for you to understand what I am showing you. You have read a blog, or a few papers about the sun, or worse, listened to the IPCC, and you actually think you know everything about it, and that what you know is right. You have no doubts about your own knowledge. A very bad situation.
And thank you for showing all that what you say has no credibility. Each of the items links to the science and the research that supports the items. Besides going for weaponized ignorance of a killing the messenger argument, you are assuming anyone will not check the links.
One reports this:
So, besides telling all that you do not check links, kill the messenger, and many other fallacies you still go for the idea that scientists like Evans are not.
So much for the Galileo gambit from contrarians, in reality you only show here that you have no clue about how science works, science does not discard what research showed before. You have to present evidence that will tell all that we should ignore what Schneider and many other scientists that support what he reported.
Except for you, but I’m not posting for you anyhow.
Your mantra here is to still claim that one should not consult the experts on the field, But that way only leads to baseless conspiracies and paranoia.
In reality there is no contradiction on what you are claiming here with what researchers have found, in fact it is by investigating the variability of the sun that scientists can report with confidence that the sun is not the main force driving the current increase in temperature on the earth.
As every point made in the Skeptical Science cite links to the scientific paper or research, you are only demonstrating that you are not paying attention, and only avoiding dealing with the steps that shows that this is indeed “cogent”.
I believe my retort would be that any anthropogenic contribution is swamped by natural variations (including those astronomical or solar in origin) and cannot be isolated.
I find it amusing, then, that you would ignore the rather large variations in climate within the last 2500 years or so, long before automobiles were around. Humans are still relatively small in number compared to bats, ants, and many other species. We don’t know everything and cannot know everything.
That is a boiler plate denialist point. I have seen it in videos and presentations from many deniers before, as unoriginal and misleading as usual. Scientists do not ignore past variations, in fact they use those variations to figure out what is going on and what is going to happen with the dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere and they continue to confirm that in the past there has been no trend like the one that is observed now.
The question, of course, is how reliable are the data, and what kind of data is available. The mere fact that we have thermometers everywhere gives us a false sense of accuracy. But where are those thermometers? near a parking lot in Brazil? The data must be gathered appropriately.
This is not ‘denial of science’. A bunch of numbers gathered who knows where do not constitute a climatic crisis.
The ignorance shows. The data was verified by many research groups, and the IPCC, then you are also not aware of the research done by skeptics like Muller and his Berkeley team. In the end they confirmed what the scientists reported and there is even more confidence in the data.
Of course, then one should wonder why your sources never reported that to you, it has been already 2 years. But that lack of reporting is typical from denialist sources.
It is interesting, perhaps even fascinating, how acceptance of ‘global warming’ correlates to political orientation. Those who unquestioningly accept it tend to be ‘liberal’ and those who unquestioningly deny it tend to be ‘conservative’.
The skeptic, however, is not on the same plane as either of these. Asking for scientific proof of these assertions is not being naïve or stupid. It is entirely possible, for instance, for *reduced *solar output to cause higher atmospheric temperatures, through complex biological processes.