Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

I thoroughly encourage you to research and try to find one. You would be able to update the wikipedia page if you found one.

 

I said how do you know it was in an ICE AGE while 14-17x CO2 concentration. Focus on the words in all caps next time.

 

[/QUOTE]
I frankly hate everytime you cut up the post because you think you can immediately declare victory after a sentence or phrase taken out of context and then immediately ignore the subsequent data or context.

That's the kind of **** that makes me remember that you are unworthy of my time.

 

A) That argument does not address his fallacy (false choice), but instead raises another (strawman). You've essentially claimed that it is impossible to measure ground level CO2 emissions or to evaluate the composition of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Both are wrong.

I'm linking you to the intermediate version of the article. Let me know if it goes over your head.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

and your stance is a fallacy. Period. It's just another flat earth theory.

 

Seriously? You think it is impossible for humans to add to the CO2 concentration today because it was impossible for humans to have added to the CO2 concentration millions of years ago?

And I see you are trying to embrace Guava's failed analogy of comparing AGW to flat earth theory. As a reminder, it is still a failure because you cant find a single recognized group of national or international scientists who embrace flat earth. On the other hand, you cant find a single recognized group of national or international scientist who reject human induced climate change.

 

It's an informative pice but one has to read it to the end for the conclusions of the extensive work. This is where it breaks down for those who already know what they know and that is sufficient. Discussion with such on this matter is unlikely to be productive.

 

I don't think you have brought any evidence forward that proves humans are the main reason for global warming, especially since we have had higher levels of CO2 in the past, before humans walked the earth.

Do you think it's possible that humans make it rain?

Found this in 2 seconds...

While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.

 

What's that group of scientists called?

And you are dodging again. Is it possible for humans to be the reason that the CO2 concentration has increased over the last ~150 years?

 

Do 31,000 scientists all have to belong to the same organization? I am not dodging anything as I have said repeatedly that I don't think you have brought any evidence forward that proves humans are the main reason for global warming, especially since we have had higher levels of CO2 in the past, before humans walked the earth.

Can humans make it rain?

 

Why should I waste my time when you can't even prove your claims about humans being the primary source of climate change despite "thousands" of scientists you claim agree with you?

 

Yes because addressing each point for point is tiresome for those either too lazy to address each one or too scared to be put on the spot

Thanks for once again proving my point.

 

Yes Legal. Its a strawman to ask for specific numbers for your flat earth CO2 theory isn't it. LOL

LOL No Legal. I'm asking you to post actual percentages of CO2 both man made and natural to prove your flat earth theory and once again you can't do it.

Thank you very much for that article. It just destroyed your entire theory!

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions.

Game over Legal. You can't pretend man made CO2 is the primary source of climate change when your own article admits its MUCH SMALLER than natural emissions!

There is ZERO evidence that man made CO2's impact is so great it can overcome being the smallest amount of CO2 on earth!

Game. Set. Match.

 

Also remember that these 'We are all going to fry!' fanatics are ideologically aligned with the same people who desperately want to shove corks up cow butts in fear of methane emissions.

 

What's so pathetic about this religious flat earth fanaticism is if these people really cared about the environment they wouldn't link tangible pollution like trash in the sea, man made pollutants in the soil and man made pollutants in the air with this humans are the primary reasons for climate change dogma.

But in their world you have to accept it all or you're a denier. You must accept our complete dogma not just the pollution we can prove but the theories that blame humans for all bad weather.

 

....what the actual **** are you talking about?

 

You are dodging the question. Focus up.

Is it possible for humans to be responsible for the current increase in CO2 concentrations even though it is impossible for them to be responsible for CO2 concentration millions of years ago?

 

I have proven that claim to you, and quoted the policy statements representing thousands of scientists.

You refuse to believe such because you are incapable of identifying even a hypothetical example of what proof looks like to you.

 

A) I am not misquoting Earthsky. He explicitly referenced the lack of ability to know whether the Earth was in an ice age during that period at another point in the post that you selectively quoted.

B) Quoting this entire article (which violates fair use by the way) does not present any justification for the single question of how you know that the Earth went through an ice age during that time frame. It also does not address the other question I posed on how you know the cause for that hypothetical ice age.

 

You make your point by selectively editing posts and intentionally misreading the other argument.

 

How does the article address the fact that natural CO2 emissions dwarf the human CO2 emissions on a yearly basis?

Please. Keep reading instead of stopping at the first line that you think supports your argument and intentionally remaining ignorant of the rest.

 

I'm just going to point out that your sources have been technocracy.news, cornwallalliance.org, and shiftfrequency.com. Do those really strike anyone as a reputable bunch of websites for evaluating Climate Science?

Meanwhile, you argue that NASA, NOAA, IPCC, European Union, and United Nations are all bunk.

But here is a Skeptical Science article specifically addressing the CO2-Temperature lag theory.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

 

At no point does anyone make the claim that CO2 (and other related Greenhouse gas concentrations) was not a primary factor in the climate 400 million years ago.

 

If you want me to take that list seriously, then you should probably find a list that includes fewer mathematicians than it does climatologists.