Re: "big fat ignorant liar"

On 6/10/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
>
There are no words.
>
/Flibble

>
Can you show me wrong?
>
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

>
What about this paper that I wrote?
>
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>

>
Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

 What specifically do you believe is not proven?
 

EVERYTHING you claimed as a conclusion.
You said:
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable factsThe huge spike in atmospheric CO2 from 300 ppm to 413 ppm has no other possible cause besides human activity.
The conclusion is not PROVEN, you only admit that you can't think of any other possible casue.
The fact that historically, the earth is cooler that normally has been over geological time lines doesn't seem to be important to you. Look over periods of millions of years, and it is clear that we have been in a cooler spell recently.
See: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
Note, you do have evidence of a condition. There is strong evidence of the likely source of that condition.
That is NOT "Proof" in the logical sense of the word.
Note, the fact that the earth returning to more "normal" (in the long view) conditions would be disastrous for our current conditions, say that we should really be working to do what we can to slow that return rather than accelerate it, but trying to assign "blame" doesn't relly help with working on the solution.
A big part of the problem is that we don't really understand many parts of the process that control the cycles, and so can't prove how much a given change will affect the system.
This is the problem of streaching your claim to say it is a "proof", because by doing so, when it isn't, you tarnish the data, and make it less convincing as part of the argument that shows that human activity is likely a significant factor to the recent climate changes, and that further changes have a good chance of tipping the balence (if they haven't already gone past the tipping point) that drives us to a new equalibrium point that is less desirable for us.