4 ms·

You can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across vario

You can Google it for about 5 minutes and find enough evidence to occupy your time with months of reading. There's a huge variety of available data across various complexities. You can go as deep as you want. Hell, there's a webcomic visualization (https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/) that cites multiple sources. There are multiple documentaries outlining it. How much more accessible are you requiring this information to be? You're going to lengths to make a weak argument here.

lancewiggs 8y ago
And if you don't want to/can't do that - then you can trust the climate science professionals who spend their life doing just that. And they are all screaming at the rest of us. I'm guessing that these deniers don't question other complex things like how their hardware and software works, how gravity works or how papers is made.
mjfl 8y ago
You've shown no evidence whatsoever that you personally understand climate models. You are still making the "the data is out there" argument, without getting into specifics. You are doing, precisely, what I've been saying is bad for the past few replies. It's like you are just responding to the oldest post in the thread without reading through it. Did you read it? Did you process any of it? Clearly not. Don't say my argument is weak if clearly none of it registered in your conscious mind.
- saudioger 8y ago
  Why would I waste my time explaining it to you for the sake of argument when I can literally just copy and paste a much better explanation after a 30 second google (I've read this article before, so assume I understand climate models at least this much). https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work You're just dicking around for seemingly no reason. It seems as though you're trying to win a debate that no one else is interested in by being exhaustingly pedantic. You didn't even really use the appeal to authority correctly, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt there. Good luck.

lancewiggs 8y ago

And if you don't want to/can't do that - then you can trust the climate science professionals who spend their life doing just that. And they are all screaming at the rest of us. I'm guessing that these deniers don't question other complex things like how their hardware and software works, how gravity works or how papers is made.

mjfl 8y ago

You've shown no evidence whatsoever that you personally understand climate models. You are still making the "the data is out there" argument, without getting into specifics. You are doing, precisely, what I've been saying is bad for the past few replies. It's like you are just responding to the oldest post in the thread without reading through it. Did you read it? Did you process any of it? Clearly not. Don't say my argument is weak if clearly none of it registered in your conscious mind.

saudioger 8y ago
Why would I waste my time explaining it to you for the sake of argument when I can literally just copy and paste a much better explanation after a 30 second google (I've read this article before, so assume I understand climate models at least this much). https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work You're just dicking around for seemingly no reason. It seems as though you're trying to win a debate that no one else is interested in by being exhaustingly pedantic. You didn't even really use the appeal to authority correctly, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt there. Good luck.