| No they don't but thanks for proving my point. And I don't need to google it I actually spent years looking at the material and methods. You on the other hand cause if you had you wouldn't claim things like 99% and you wouldn't actually believe consensus was science. Not a single concrete piece of evidence for your position just claims. Where is the scientifically demonstrated number that shows how much humans affect the climate? "Google it". Couldn't find it? Of course you can't cause we don't know what that number is because we haven't actually demonstrated it. Instead we are speculating that because we can't find other reasons and CO2 emissions correlate with the temperature increase then it must be that. Yet how do you explain the 0.5 degree increase from late 1800- mid 1900 were we didn't do any significant CO2 emissions and how do you explain that the temperature haven't gotten up much more than the same 0.5 from the mid 1900? Yes humans probably have some effect but we don't know how much. If 100% agreed that it was humans caused that doesn't change anything unless they can scientifically demonstrate it which they can't. All you have is namecalling. No science, no data just an attempt at bullying without anything to back you up. I can back my beliefs up scientifically, you can't. Yet you call me the denier. |