Quote:Lol. I literally tell you how ur goong to make ur argument and u still go that route? Ok.

1.) you dont build credibility by telling someone how complex a method of prefiction is. You build credibility by telling someone how accurate that process is over time. In the short term prohections about weather routinely have to be adjusted and long term climate models have been proven wrong, theyre still confounded by the last couple of decades.

2.) u guys need to prove 3 things. A.) human technology is a significant contributor to climate change. B.) that change will be catastrophic. C.) the solution you porpose will solve the problem. For me u guys are still working on point a.

3.) here is some simple math for u. 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by naturally occurring water vapor. We are responsible for less than 10% of total co2 emissions. It is estimated that when u weight those two factors we are responsible for about .26 of the greenhouse effect.

4.) in the ice core samples we see that there have been increases of co2 while surface temps remained constant for centuries and temperature increases that had no causal increase in co2 levels.

5.) the giant fusion engine responsible for all energy on earht doesnt have static output.

And please, since uve already disqualified yourself from the conversation please have one of your meteorologist friends u let intellectually intimidate u respond.