As to the "majority of climate scientists"

So, in that case, you actually used 'logical fallacy' sort of correctly, however you also used an argument from fallacy, and this isn't an appeal to authority. Smart people make mistakes 10s of thousands of really smart people make them a lot less frequently at least in the modern era. We always learn new things, and have to modify even peer reviewed literature. It's still way way way better than ANYthing else. And it should always be taken seriously because nothing is even close to as good.

 

Gravity is a property of mass and something with enough mass to have Earth's gravity will cause matter to build around a central point.

Further gravity drawing things to the center would mean that the further you moved from the center of a disc You would feel as though you were climbing an ever increasing slope.

this doesn't make sense. If you couldn't explain how the internet works it would be because you don't understand it.

I have been trying you and you repeatedly cower away and attempt to insult me to convert for your own ineptitude.

 

Which science would you imagine I don't agree with?

 

Scientific definition of Theory is....Theory ,"ACCEPTED AS TRUE" ....don't pretend to comprehend and discuss science when you don't even know that...

 

So, you have to believe the scientific consensus that gravity is a property of matter, there are many other explanations. Furthermore, your explanation doesn't work on an infinite plane.

I challenged you. Say I didn't believe in computers or the internet. Explain to me, here on this forum with no further links or external reading how computers and the internet work.

 

Accepted doesn't equal proven.

 

lol so gravity is a consensus and not a theory now? When did this happen

well this isn't allegorical because I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist.

 

Lol ok, you have no answers to anything, just a few talking points and deflection.

 

The inconvenient science counter to the current dogma such as solar science.

 

Gravity being theoretical is a talking point? I thought it was physics.

Funny you suggest I'm slow.

 

Either back it up with evidence, or you are just whistling in the wind.

 

So,homeopaths consider themselves scientists too. I know you have your little nitpicks about peer review, and to be fair there are some real gripes, however, it is essentially the baseline. In other words, while the results may be wrong, anything that is not published and peer reviewed is almost certainly wrong. The argument is usually in the vein of "this 2x4 stud is a little crooked, therefore this clump of silly string will make a better wall."

The main point being that if anything, the sun has probably been cooling. regardless, it has no real documented or observed effect on climate. Essentially it's an excuse for people who want to deny science. Made obvious by the fact that any paper trying to make that argument can't pass peer review. Which, again is the bare minimum for something to be taken seriously.

 

Of course experiments can be done to prove that the Sun will burn out one day.

What do you mean "other than first principles" ? It is by these principles - such as conservation of energy- that we know the Sun will burn out one day. Mass can neither be created or destroyed - including in the form of energy. It can be transformed - mass into energy or matter into different energy states - but once energy is gone .. it is gone.

We can do all kinds of experiments that prove these principles. The sun is losing energy = unless the Sun gets an energy infusion - starts getting matter from some unknown source - it will eventually run out of energy. The warmth you feel on your skin from the Sun .. that is the Sun losing energy. If that energy is not replaced via an injection of matter ... the ability of the Sun to irradiate your face will decrease over time.

 

Yes it is. You just have to identify a set of naturally modulated physical processes that can explain the observations. That would sufficiently falsify the anthroprogenic part.

 

https://atmos.ucla.edu/climate-science-major

 

Shows what you (don’t) know.

 

Don't see anything in there about the temp variation within the grid cell (1 km^2 in your example), which will surely exceed the instrumental error.

Sure, who would trust direct observation over proxy data, right?

Sheesh, who knew you were a skeptic?

So it didn't exist until somebody made a theory about it. Right?

 

I'm not sure what your concern is here. Almost every location on Earth experiences temperature swings far larger than the instrument error. That has no impact on the error of the mean. It is entirely dependent on the error of the individual measurements and the number of measurements. The fact that a location can be -10C in the winter and 30C in the summer is irrelevant.

 

What don't I know?

 

How to falsify the AGW hypothesis.

 

What a loopy definition for "falsifiable". I'm not sure what cult writings hoosier pulled it from.

Back in reality, denier nonsense is not falsifiable. We know this because I've asked deniers what could falsify their beliefs, and none of them can come up with a single thing. That demonstrates that denialism is pseudoscience, essentially a religion.

In stark contrast, AGW theory is falsifiable, because it's real science. Many directly observable things could falsify AGW theory. Here's a quick 10.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Needless to say, none of those has been demonstrated, so AGW theory has not been falsified.

This is where hoosier now auto-babbles "But ... but ... the hypothesis is not falsfiable!", as if such sophistry means anything except "I've got nothing, so I need to create my own alternate-reality definitions."

 

Why would identifying a set of physical processes that are mostly modulated by natural processes not be sufficient to falsify AGW?

 

I refer to spatial variations, not temporal.

 

Not surprised all you have are ad Homs and a complete lack of understanding science and the scientific method.

 

For one the natural processes are not fully understood. If it was then the sensitivity of CO2 could be narrowed.