Re: "big fat ignorant liar"

On 6/11/25 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

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?

>
The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

 That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
It proves that CO2 has increased 126-fold faster in
60 years than the next fastest time in the last 800,000
years where it took 7,537 years to increase as much.

No, it doesn't "prove" that fact, it cites a source that says it.

 Pieter Tans 2019 (lead scientist of NOAA's Global
Greenhouse Gas Reference Network agrees
 "There is no currently known climate science that
could possibly attribute the current 100-foldfaster
increase of global CO2 to any natural process that
would have gone undetected." Pieter Tans 2019
(lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Which again, doesn't PROVE anything, but is just an appeal to athority,
Your problem is you don't know what it means to actually PROVE something, because you chose to not learn the basics of logic.
By your "logic", we can prove just about anything we want, we just need to find a source of some meaningful LOOKING data, and someone with a bit of credetials to make a claim.
Sorry, that just shows that you don't understand the nature of what it takes to PROVE something,
The Climate Change deniers can come up with much more "data" and "experts" that just counteract what you say, so if you claim you have "proved" it, so have they, amd thus you are showing that your idea of logic allows for the whole system to just be contradictory,

 

Most of it is about the
carbon dioxide concentration, which is usualy not regarded as an aspect
of climate. One diagram shows a clear but small chage of temperature
during 120 years.
>
Promised in the title but not given are proofs of "anthropogenic"
and "severe".
>