> Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast,

> Your consensus has been disputed elsewhere. That's fine. Not every one and last climate scientist has to agree to this consensus. It's enough that the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree. > It's plainly obvious that the bulk of climate change has nothing to do with humans. If we're talking about the climate change that's been happening in the last 150 years, that's not what the scientific consensus is. Going back even further it becomes more obvious that humans have a massive impact on climate and weather. Did you know that the whole southern Mediterianian coast used to be woodland? > Right, because you disagree with them, they must be untrue. No, they are untrue because they are not supported by facts. They are irrelevant because they don't provide information to explore the topic. I don't have problem changing my conclusions when new relevant data are provided that would necessitate that. But your points are all either disproven or irrelevant. > So convenient where the graph ends there. [...] What data would you convince you otherwise? See, that's what I mean. You give me some hand-wavy arguments why climate change is not related to CO2 or why the sun is the culprit or whatever else. Even if I refute your points, you just give more vague excuses without actually entering into a discussion about the points provided. To me this feels intellectually dishonest.