Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

And that's just normal variability in any scientific research study, and why scientific data is analysed using statistical analysis methods to determine the probability of a conclusion from the research data. And there is a high probability that the recent increases in global temperatures are caused by human activity, and not from changes in solar activity.

 

Which is not surprising, given that solar activity was at the highest sustained level in thousands of years in the 20th century, and we are still recovering from the LIA.

It proves the absurd claims of constant or accelerating warming are nothing but uninformed and disingenuous nonscience.

Absolutely. So why do the CO2 climate narrative pushers constantly make that claim?

So you agree that your side's claim of relentless, accelerating warming that matches the increase in CO2 is a stupid lie? That's progress of a sort, I suppose.

 

And does your daddy help you with your studies at your "internationally respected university"?

 

And when the research data do not conform to the CO2 climate narrative, they just change the data.

No, that conclusion is not supported by valid scientific reasoning or statistical analysis.

 

Beneath contempt.

 

And have you got a certificate from your "internationally respected university", and how much did it cost?

 

I've already given plenty of evidence to support them. All you have done is deny.

<yawn>

I graduated almost 50 years ago.

 

Tuition was a lot cheaper back then.

You evidently enjoy disgracing yourself with ad hominem filth. Go nuts.

 

Have you done a statistical analysis of the data to support your claim?

 

I already refuted that graph, and you did not even attempt to answer my criticisms.

 

I've shown the logic of their claims is faulty.

 

I know more than you, anyway.

 

No, I just proved you wrong on multiple counts.

 

IOW you have not been involved in any scientific research and know nothing about it.
So when did you do your PhD in economics?

 

Why can you never offer anything but puerile ad hominem filth?

 

I see no evidence to support your claim.

 

Wrong again, as usual.

I don't make false claims about my education, unlike some people.

 

More accurately, you never provide any for yours.

 

You have proved nothing, except that you know nothing about scientific methodology.

 

So what scientific research have you been involved in, and what scientific qualifications do you have from your "internationally respected university" in 1974?

 

Why do you feel your only way to "contribute" to the discussion is to make it about me personally?

 

Because you know nothing about scientific methodology, and because you just personally attack the messenger and totally ignore the message.

And even Blind Freddy can see that there is a strong correlation between recent rises in global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from human activity, and no correlation with solar activity.

 

Of course that is a bald falsehood. I identified specific reasons why your two graphs -- which have appeared here many times -- are disingenuous frauds.

Both of those claims are just baldly false, as already proved.

 

IOW you have no evidence to support your claims.

 

We are in a constant warming period of significant duration as shown.

There are more factors than CO2. CO2 is significant in that it does have an affect and humans have/are causing an increase in CO2 production. Thus, CO2 reduction is one of the things humans can do to slow warming.

My side is NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and the hundreds of science organizations that carry out investigations on climate factors.