90% of engineering is working off of 18th century physics. You think the common folk are going to accept new science?
So being that the AGW consensus does not even address man made co2 and being that a consensus is not science... what could your point have been for citing my quote.
1. A Consensus is not science. 2. There is no consensus regarding man made CO2. That is not a debate. Those are facts. An example of a debate would be whether the data is showing we are warming outside natural cycles. I would enjoy reading both sides of the debate.
A debate would also include explanations of all the climate shifts, far worse shifts than we're currently seeing, prior to smoke stacks and the evil humans driving their cars around.
Thanks for all those citations, really helpful. 1. Conservatives are dumb 2. Conservatives have low intellect because of genetic reasons and it's irreversible That is not a debate. Those are facts. Science becomes so easy when you are a Conservative. Make declarative statements, cite nothing, claim conspiracies, provide no data while being directly funded by businesses.
I think it's funny that some here think that there is still a debate about the proven truthful fact of man made global warming. The deabate is loooooonnnnnngggggg over and done. Those still questioning it just look like ignorant fools. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ And the sad thing is that the science is simple common sense, but the dumb conservative deniers still don't get it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's gone up 40%. CO2 is the most important factor in regulating the earth's temps.
Which cited scientific argument should I be refuting? All he did was make declarative statements, never cited any papers, never cited any data, never cited his own credentials. If he can do that, why can't I do the same about conservative intellect?
Because you have zero ability to debate this subject. 1. A Consensus is not science. 2. There is no consensus regarding man made CO2.