I guess that if you don't have a strong argument, the best you can do is to misrepresent the alternative opinion?
From what I've seen on here, no-one has suggested that increasing amounts of C02 might not have the potential to lead to some warming.
However what is disputed is:
- The extent to which man-made C02 has driven temperature in the recent past
- The extent to which changing C02 will impact temperature in the future
- The extent to which any feedback loops are positive rather than negative with regards C02
- The extent to which C02 drives temperature compared with all other factors
- The extent to which changing temperature will adversely impact 'weather' events
- The extent to which it is economically sensible to 'adapt' rather than try and 'prevent / defer' the impacts of climate change
- The extent to which so-called green measures (taxes) will have any practical impact on future climate
etc
etc
And yet historical data (over as small a period as the last 100 years) is all that there is to suggest the C02 is the fundamental driver of temperature.
Models can only be validated by comparing predictions against actual experience. The comparisons are woeful.
The actual weather is doing the best job for showing up how poor the models / theory is in practice!
Your rejection of an argument that has not been made is meaningless!
And there it is, the fallback retort from the warmists - if you don't "believe" then you are 'as bad as a creationist....'
Author: sidicks
26-11-2019 04:10:51
Author