Evidence for global climate change 1900

Lloyd Parker

A falsehood (because not all the scientific literature does) and an Argumentum ad Populum (argument that because it is a popular view, it is the correct view).

There is no jury in science. Science can be done completely by the individual. IF the scientist wants to know something, there is no need for him to take anyone's word or look for a jury - the answers are in the nature and all he has to do is devise an experiment or make the observations.

Argumentum ad populum.

Weak analogy. Gravity is easily observed, every college student measures the magnitude of gravity. Atoms are demonstrated in Chemistry clbutt, and via brownian motion experiments.

If the only reason you have for claiming that man made CO2 is the cause is correlation (in itself the fallacy of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc), then instances of negative correlation is a legitimate debunk.

Weak Analogy, fallacy of fallacy.

Circular logic.

ARgumentum ad hominem.

Irrelvant thesis. I said "The amount of CO2 added to the system is trivial". You rebuttal is that the trival amount is up, and then state the undisputed fact that CO2 traps heat.

Excuse me, but I can't help but notice that even given two postings, you've not made one rational, scientific reply.

True, but irrelevant, and it doesn't address the fact Carbonate rocks are in the system.

I'm tired of this. You've not made one rational statement. Gibbering idiots don't make rational statements. Perhaps you'd like to come back and attempt to make a rational argument why correlations of CO2 level to global temperature "proves" that CO2 is a cause and not an effect.

All in all, you are typical of the man made global warming crowd.