Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That single reference does not at all relate to the Crichton material supplied by Red Phoenix, which was solely dedicated to the topic of consensus specifically as it is used to insinuate something as fact and true merely due to the agreement of parties.

 

So tell me, why on earth would I debate a critical piece on Scientific Consensus written by a well known fiction writer who uses NASA as his link to disparage and fails miserably. The facts are all in the link https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ He has not in any way debunked any of those facts contained.

 

Michael Crichton, world’s most famous global warming denier, dies

Then he used his fame in the most destructive way possible — to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific understanding of global warming, to urge people not to take action against the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations.

In 2004, he published State of Fear, a deeply flawed novel that attacks climate science and climate scientists. Although a work of fiction, the book had a clear political agenda, as evidenced by Crichton’s December 7, 2004 press release:

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/michael-crichton-worlds-most-famous-global-warming-denier-dies-147caec78b70/

 

If you want to debate, link to credible peer reviewed studies from climate scientists that have sources attached and I'll be more than happy to do so.

No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change.  Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory.

In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said.  And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about.

 

On 7/28/2023 at 8:27 AM, Social Media said:

Scientists agree the extra heat is mainly linked to fossil fuel use.

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Another piece of evidence which exposes the disingenuous nature of the climate change cultists is the constant touting of the consensus line "scientists agree," or "the majority of scientists agree" (90% is a favourite number used because it's psychologically closest to 100% agreement; and 100% agreement would represent proof positive).  Everyone knows that consensus does not equate to proof.  Yet again and again you hear this worthless, and highly debatable, factoid being passed off falsely as proof that the climate hoax is in fact real.  Following the purest definition of democracy, or mob rule as it is commonly known, the majority now gets to define what fact, proof and truth is via consensus.  No one who is even remotely interested in honesty and truth should ever even mention the word consensus in any of their arguments.

Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change.  The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false.  Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real.  "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements.

In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy.  It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates.  I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief.  Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based.  But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief.  For there always exists countering evidence.

So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof?  And if not then state your case.  And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious.  Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself.

Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted.  For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information?  And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them.

Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool.  They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree."  Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing.  After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit.

[Bkk Brian]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering, excusing yourself via deflection by raising and moving to an unrelated issue; that of Crichton's qualifications in weighing in on climate change.  Whether he is correct or incorrect in any of his views has zero bearing on the issue of whether or not consensus equates to fact, truth or proof of a theory.

In fact, I had raised the issue directly previous to Red Phoenix's post, which I'm sure he posted purely in support of what I had said.  And the issue of consensus is one of the central points to the article which this topic is about.

 

Not only is consensus central to the article, ii is central to the entire debate over climate change.  The use of consensus by the climate change movement is not only disingenuous and uses deceptive logic, it is flat out false.  Article after article after article about climate change makes mention of consensus to mislead people into believing that it equates to climate change being real.  "Scientists agree" and all of the variations in phrasing is meant purely to deceive for they are empty, irrelevant statements.

In fact, the argument of consensus is a recognised formal argumentative fallacy.  It's termed Argumentum ad populum and per Wiki:

Argumentum ad populum is a type of informal fallacy,[1][14] specifically a fallacy of relevance,[15][16] and is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).[14][4][9] It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people,[12] stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

BTW, you can throw in argumentum ad verecundiam as another logical fallacy which is, how shall I say it, liberally used in climate change articles and debates.  I will also mention that until climate change is definitively and incontrovertibly proven fact it is to that point mere belief.  Granted, that belief may have evidence to support the conclusion upon which the belief is based.  But regardless of the quantity of evidence nonetheless it is still only a belief.  For there always exists countering evidence.

So I'll ask you once more, Bkk Brian, do you agree that consensus does not equate to fact nor truth nor proof?  And if not then state your case.  And if you still refuse to answer then, as I've said, we can all assume the obvious.  Understand that I am in no way attempting to put you on the spot nor am I presenting this with any singular malicious intent to expose you but by failing to answer you must also understand that you will automatically expose yourself.

Now I will say that any climate change article that uses argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad verecundiam to sway the public's opinion is an article that is not to be trusted.  For if it knowingly relies on fallacious logic, with full awareness that it is false, then what other information may the article be conveying which might be false yet slipped in as the odds are gamed such that the uninformed public may not be perceptive enough to recognise the falsity of the information?  And when people do not have access to the full information it is very easy to dupe them.

Imagine now that the climate change movement would forever be denied the use of this deceptive argumentative tool.  They would then have to rely purely on their evidence and studies but they would no longer be able to make the claim that their evidence and studies are true and correct because "scientists agree."  Other information and theories, though they may not be in the majority, would then have equal standing.  After that the truth is determined strictly on the basis of merit.

"No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering"

 

Where does Crichton's short article debunk https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ You know, the one referenced in the link were his article is and that Red Phoenix's post left out? It was the whole point of placing Crichton's fiction there to debunk it by the author Mark J. Perry. So explain how is it debunked?

 

 

[0james0]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You don't just have a disagreement with me but you got one with nuclear physics as well. In brief, the carbon that comes from fossil fuels contains virtually no carbon 14. So it's a simple matter to measure how the ration of carbon 14 to carbon 12 and carbon 13 in the atmosphere has declined. That's about as ironclad as a proof can be.

Here's a far more thorough and better explanation of how this works:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is.

 

The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News

In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

 

https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Clear your web browser from all the garbage it’s collected because it’s directing you to what you assume what is instead of what is.

 

The mathematics of leaf decay - MIT News

In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

 

https://news.mit.edu/2012/leaf-decay-1004

You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2.  For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface.

"The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes.  Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

 

And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.

 

I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.

[0james0]

It’s remarkable as reading through the posts here many boys and girls especially the millennials really have no interest in researching with an open mind, posting “reports” from second and third parties that are not open to additional scrutiny and information. If science has a theory it needs to be proven by disproving it. Just a lot yelling and screaming here, and it’s so clear that many are not open to other evidence and it epitomizes fascism. Isn’t that supposedly the left is against? Guess not.

[Tippaporn]

40 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"No, I'm not going to let you back out of answering"

 

Where does Crichton's short article debunk https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ You know, the one referenced in the link were his article is and that Red Phoenix's post left out? It was the whole point of placing Crichton's fiction there to debunk it by the author Mark J. Perry. So explain how is it debunked?

This is pointless, Brian.  What has Crichton to do with the subject of whether or not consensus has any validity?  Nothing.  You're totally off the wall.  But you have exposed yourself.

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

It’s remarkable as reading through the posts here many boys and girls especially the millennials really have no interest in researching with an open mind, posting “reports” from second and third parties that are not open to additional scrutiny and information. If science has a theory it needs to be proven by disproving it. Just a lot yelling and screaming here, and it’s so clear that many are not open to other evidence and it epitomizes fascism. Isn’t that supposedly the left is against? Guess not.

Your post is a masterpiece of irony. If you truly had an open mind, you couldn't possibly have come with the conclusion that you  from that MIT article titled "The Mathematics of Leaf Decay" If ever there was an example of closed and obsessive thinking, your interpretation of that article fits the bill perfectly.

[0james0]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You clearly didn't understand the article. It notes that it's a cycle. Leaves soak up CO2 and when they die their little corpses eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. In other words, the CO2 is being recycled. So, ultimately the leaves aren't adding any CO2.  For your benefit I have put the relevant portions into boldface.

"The colorful leaves piling up in your backyard this fall can be thought of as natural stores of carbon. In the springtime, leaves soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting the gas into organic carbon compounds. Come autumn, trees shed their leaves, leaving them to decompose in the soil as they are eaten by microbes.  Over time, decaying leaves release carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

 

And I see that you have no answer for the proof based on nuclear physics that the source of approximately 1/3 of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil fuels.

 

I could cite other reasons as to why your contention that leaves are responsible for the increase in CO2, but I'll leave it there unless you insist on further pursuing this nonsense.

Sorry for your predisposed position which is where your errors begin. I’d suggest hitting the books and learn what it is you’re trying to understand, it’s very complex and it will take some time for you to understand. But you first need to skip and abandon any political positions. Climatology is in its infancy and no scientist or university has a full grasp of it and neither do you.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

It’s remarkable as reading through the posts here many boys and girls especially the millennials really have no interest in researching with an open mind, posting “reports” from second and third parties that are not open to additional scrutiny and information. If science has a theory it needs to be proven by disproving it. Just a lot yelling and screaming here, and it’s so clear that many are not open to other evidence and it epitomizes fascism. Isn’t that supposedly the left is against? Guess not.

You're rather a newbie here, 0james0, so welcome to AN.

Let me be the first to commend you on your extremely perceptive post.   Spot on.  You nailed it, mate. 

[0james0]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Your post is a masterpiece of irony. If you truly had an open mind, you couldn't possibly have come with the conclusion that you  from that MIT article titled "The Mathematics of Leaf Decay" If ever there was an example of closed and obsessive thinking, your interpretation of that article fits the bill perfectly.

Millennials verbatim, thanks ????

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, 0james0 said:

Sorry for your predisposed position which is where your errors begin. I’d suggest hitting the books and learn what it is you’re trying to understand, it’s very complex and it will take some time for you to understand. But you first need to skip and abandon any political positions. Climatology is in its infancy and no scientist or university has a full grasp of it and neither do you.

. I showed exactly why your interpretation of the article is wrong and you come back with empty generalities. If you can't even decpher a simple and accessible research paper accurately, why should anyone believe your general claims at all.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[Bkk Brian]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This is pointless, Brian.  What has Crichton to do with the subject of whether or not consensus has any validity?  Nothing.  You're totally off the wall.  But you have exposed yourself.

 

Yes totally pointless Crichton's article was placed there by the author Mark J. Perry to debunk the NASA link and failed on all scores.

 

Still waiting for some credible peer reviewed scientific studies if you want to debate.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're rather a newbie here, 0james0, so welcome to AN.

Let me be the first to commend you on your extremely perceptive post.   Spot on.  You nailed it, mate. 

You must be desperate for allies if you call someone perceptive who clearly got it massively wrong about what a research paper said.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

Sorry for your predisposed position which is where your errors begin. I’d suggest hitting the books and learn what it is you’re trying to understand, it’s very complex and it will take some time for you to understand. But you first need to skip and abandon any political positions. Climatology is in its infancy and no scientist or university has a full grasp of it and neither do you.

Au contraire!!  They read (and believe) everything the MSM publishes!  And the MSM is the one and only source of all truth.  <sarc> obviously.

[0james0]

Just now, placeholder said:

. I showed exactly why your interpretation of the article is wrong and you come back with empty generalities. If you can't even decpher a simple and accessible research paper accurately, why should anyone believe your general claims at all.

In other words, you've got nothing.

I’m sorry it’s upsetting, but we can see your game. Good night and have fun twirling around in the addiction of trying to convince.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, 0james0 said:

I’m sorry it’s upsetting, but we can see your game. Good night and have fun twirling around in the addiction of trying to convince.

You know that someone has nothing when they try to make it personal with such comments as "I'm sorry it's upsetting..."

Still, no specific rebuttal to the obvious flaw in your interpretation of that article. And the reason is that there can't be one. The gist of the article is that the CO2 is recycled. Sucked up in spring and returned ultimately after death. No net addition to the atmosphere. And you still have no rebuttal for the powerful evidence based on nuclear physics.

[Bkk Brian]

23 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Au contraire!!  They read (and believe) everything the MSM publishes!  And the MSM is the one and only source of all truth.  <sarc> obviously.

There you go, more dishonesty from you. We believe the consensus of scientific opinion published in numerous outlets that provide facts and evidence that can be scrutinized not just MSM

 

And all you have is belief and prayer since you have no credible sources that you've posted, at least not yet, still waiting.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You must be desperate for allies if you call someone perceptive who clearly got it massively wrong about what a research paper said.

I need no allies but I do like to make friends.  Regardless of what prior exchanges the two of you have had, which I've not read, his post which I replied to is quite a perceptive piece.  Oh, I know you wouldn't agree.  After all, I think you understand who he was referencing indirectly.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I need no allies but I do like to make friends.  Regardless of what prior exchanges the two of you have had, which I've not read, his post which I replied to is quite a perceptive piece.  Oh, I know you wouldn't agree.  After all, I think you understand who he was referencing indirectly.

Here's his comment. It's located all the back in the distant past: 37 minutes ago and on the same page as your comment.

 

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Here's his comment. It's located all the back in the distant past: 37 minutes ago and on the same page as your comment.

 

You must not have read my last reply to you.  My assumption based on the fact that you never responded.  Typical.
 

 

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I think the joke thread is in a different sub forum. 

I was responding to 0james0 because of his trolling remarks, stating to a male poster "Fair enough young lady"

 

But since you're now trolling to I'll leave you to it.

[Shmo]

On 7/28/2023 at 1:34 AM, Sharp said:

 

The fact they relocated many monitors to ground level from the previous 2 meter minimum height tells u everything about this BS!!

Canada removed arctic monitors that they base their average temperature on , less monitoring to work with = changes to the published averages. Science at its finest….

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You must not have read my last reply to you.  My assumption based on the fact that you never responded.  Typical.
 

 

I was planning on getting around to it even though I have nothing but contempt for your efforts to make things personal and your calumny. So here it goes. 

Deflecting onto Greta Thunberg and Al Gore says nothing about the science. My cult, if you want to call it that, is what the climatologists at the IPCC say about the consequences if certain CO2 levels are breached.

To distance myself from Al Gore and Greta Thunberg  would mean that at one time I was a follower of theirs. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this just more of your baseless nonsense? People like you who try to make it personal do so because they have no good replies to the science. Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong. I've asked you repeatedly

Are you claiming that the predicted rise in temperature is wrong?

Are you claiming that the predicted faster warming of the poles is wrong?

Are you claiming that the huge net loss of water from the world's glaciers is wrong?

Are you claiming that the predicted cooling of the stratosphere is wrong?

 

And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims?

Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead.

And that's because you've got nothing.

 

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, Shmo said:

Canada removed arctic monitors that they base their average temperature on , less monitoring to work with = changes to the published averages. Science at its finest….

Got a link to support that claim?

From the landing page of the World News Forum:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the opinion "articles" from people that make their living from climate change hysteria, clearly the only people we can trust. 

 

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Indeed. Sources that also make their living from climate change hysteria. 

 

In the meantime, with all the idiotic renewable energy and social engineering, we are continuing to generate more CO2 each year. 

 

Stay the course! 

Can you identify climate change deniers that don't profit from denial?  Either directly (paid by fossil fuel industry), indirectly (politicians appealing to their base) or egotistically (semi-celebrities seeking attention)?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, 0james0 said:

Erroneous exaggeration, 90% of C02 is natural, about 10% is from human activity. 

Possibly true (a source would have been nice) but irrelevant.  If the CO2 generated by people is more than the environment can absorb through photosynthesis and other processes, then the CO2 builds up in the atmosphere along with the greenhouse effect.

 

If you increase your body weight by 10% a year it will only be a few years before you have serious health problems.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Au contraire!!  They read (and believe) everything the MSM publishes!  And the MSM is the one and only source of all truth.  <sarc> obviously.

MSM as opposed to what?  Fringe media with an obvious agenda?

[placeholder]

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the opinion "articles" from people that make their living from climate change hysteria, clearly the only people we can trust. 

Nonsense. It's the scientific opinion of the members of the IPCC. You know, climatologists.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Possibly true (a source would have been nice) but irrelevant.  If the CO2 generated by people is more than the environment can absorb through photosynthesis and other processes, then the CO2 builds up in the atmosphere along with the greenhouse effect.

 

If you increase your body weight by 10% a year it will only be a few years before you have serious health problems.

The point is, as the authors note, it's about recycling CO2. As the authors explicitly state, leaves suck it up in the spring, and then it eventually gets released after the leaves die and fall to the ground. Not about a net increase.

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

I was planning on getting around to it even though I have nothing but contempt for your efforts to make things personal and your calumny. So here it goes. 

Deflecting onto Greta Thunberg and Al Gore says nothing about the science. My cult, if you want to call it that, is what the climatologists at the IPCC say about the consequences if certain CO2 levels are breached.

To distance myself from Al Gore and Greta Thunberg  would mean that at one time I was a follower of theirs. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is this just more of your baseless nonsense? People like you who try to make it personal do so because they have no good replies to the science. Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong. I've asked you repeatedly

Are you claiming that the predicted rise in temperature is wrong?

Are you claiming that the predicted faster warming of the poles is wrong?

Are you claiming that the huge net loss of water from the world's glaciers is wrong?

Are you claiming that the predicted cooling of the stratosphere is wrong?

 

And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims?

Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead.

And that's because you've got nothing.

 

Is the pot calling the kettle black?  Me thinks so.

I find it odd that you make it a point to distance yourself from two of the key individuals who fomented this movement who believe exactly as you do.  It's odd and that is all.  And no, to distance one's self from someone does not necessitate being a follower first.  You're employing a fallacy of logic here.  For A to be true does not necessitate that condition B must exist.  You can distance yourself from someone without being a follower.

 

Why should I implicitly trust the IPCC?  Is the IPCC infallible?  Is the IPCC beyond questioning?  You certainly question climatologists and institutions who are counter to your belief.  Is questioning a one way street?

 

Are you using the argumentative fallacy of argumentum ab auctoritate as you subtly suggest that the climatologists, specifically those at the IPCC, who also coincidentally happen to agree with your beliefs, and the IPCC itself as an authoritative organization, are "the science?"  Even science itself, as an authority, is not incapable of being wrong.  If you need examples feel free to ask.

An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of fallacy when the opinion of a non-expert on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument or when the authority is used to say that the claim is true, as authorities can be wrong.

Now there may be a lot of others who aren't aware of the fallacies of argument and logic which you consistently use but those fallacious arguments don't work on me.  I understand quite well their flawed and deceptive nature.

 

"Several times you've claimed that all the predictions of climatologists are wrong."

Here you are outright sticking words in my mouth, hoping readers don't notice, then deceptively making it a statement of fact, when it is indeed false.  Where is the "all?"

  

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

the failure of so many dire predictions

Neither did I make any claim that any of the predictions made which you are putting forth are false.  Again, I find that your entire rationale within your arguments here are deceptive in nature for they're attempting to purposely paint a false picture.

 

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

So it's not surprising that an effort is now being made to prove the great predictive ability of climate change climatologists in order to regain their credibility.

That is not a statement of refutation.

 

"And, if so, where is your evidence to back up those claims?

"Basically, when confronted with the science you resort to deflections instead.

"And that's because you've got nothing."

I've already pointed out to you the futility in posting any information which opposes your belief.  You have not addressed my quite valid reasoning below and merrily continue to chastise me for not supplying you with "my" evidence.  You then furthermore employ more forms of fallacious logic to draw your own erroneous conclusions, such that I merely deflect and/or your trademark punchline, "And that's because you've got nothing."

  

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Regarding the data you and others put forth, placeholder, there always exists data to the contrary.  To that end we could theoretically go on eternally exchanging data points and evidences and studies whilst refuting each other's evidence.  To what end?  I'll never be able to convince you or any other with data.  You folks are already too heavily invested, both intellectually and emotionally, in your position that you have the "truth."  At this point you couldn't reverse course even if you wanted to.

The truth is, placeholder, that you cannot be searching for the truth if your entire effort is to merely "debunk" any and all information which does not fit into your belief system regarding climate change.  Anyone intent on knowing the real truth does not act in this manner.  They investigate all information as to it's validity, or not, with an open mind.  In my humble opinion you have already concluded what the truth is, nothing can and will change that (except yourself), and due to the fact that you are convinced of your truth then you will deny any all other information which is contradictory.  Whether any other information is true or not matters not to you.  For your mission objective seems to be singular, one thing and one thing only . . . nothing more than continually validating your truth.  That's it.

 

So again, do you understand why I do not post any information which contradicts yours?  Because it's futile.  Hell will freeze over before you would be wiling to accept any of it regardless of it's merits.  If merits be damned then so must you damn yourself to an echo chamber in which the knowledge contained within that echo chamber is vastly limited and incomplete.