you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Unless you can show us the accounting of all the BTU's in and out your claim is unscientific.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We've got much better analysis that that. You can look at the global mean surface temperatures modelled using only natural forcing, and compare it with the temperatures modelled using anthropogenic plus natural forcing.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/models-observed-human-natural.png

Anthropogenic is all the warming of the past 50 years, and nearly all the warming of the past 100.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

On what grounds do you have the qualifications to call anything unscientific?

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Lmao. Congratulations. Want to say something of substance now? Naming off a fallacy isn’t an argument.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Your comment us an appeal to authority. You fool. Is that clear enough?

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nope. You’re still just naming off fallacies. I’m referring to professionals who know what the fuck they’re talking about. You’re not, and don’t.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Claiming that something is correct because an authority said so is literally an appeal to authority fallacy.

[–]FourteenDigitz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it’s not. But keep arguing in circles halfwit.