re: #336 G.W.

Perhaps, but not when the evidence is solid enough.

re: #333 freetoken

I don’t think that’s what he meant either, only that the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of global warming is much weaker than the actual warming itself.

This is a completely false statement. Do back it up with some science if you have any. Otherwise you are just shilling. You have seen about 20 threads with me. Do go to the appropriate links I have given. Try actually reading them. Here is a place to start and it answers this false claim of yours quite well.

earthguide.ucsd.edu

Before the industrial era, circa 1800, atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 280 ppmv for several thousand of years (that is, between 275 and 280 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); this we know from the composition of ancient air trapped in polar ice. Carbon dioxide has risen continuously since then, and the average value when Dr. Keeling ted his measurements in 1958 was near 315 ppmv. By the year 2000 it has risen to about 367 ppmv (that is 367 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Thus, it is higher than pre-industrial values by one third of the pre-industrial era. (You can check the math on your calculator.)

Again, I am not a climate scientist (and I don’t have the time to become an expert),

Then perhaps you should stop calling the experts names and dismissing the seriousness of the facts. Perhaps you should listen to them.

so I cannot judge the science itself. This is simply my subjective impression.

And yet you use judgmental language like warmist and alarmist and fanatic. Cut the crap Bagua. And don’t really don’t tell me about how this is not the point. I have ceased to care what you think the point is. The point is that you insult the science and the facts and make false claims that you can not back.

How did Sinclair cherry pick?