Climate Change, page-907

You're actually the F tier of debating. Like, genuinely @Shistonsou. is this the rational thinkers you were talking about?

"So you haven't sacrificed anything of value which means you believe in this so much you'll only pay zero dollars to achieve it."What sacrifices? What do you even mean? Solar Panels cost a few thousand dollars (I dont even remember the exact number) but guess what, they have pretty much paid for themselves (Is that a sacrifice?) My upgraded car, about $20,000 at the time, but way more fuel efficient than my previous one. Rode a bike to work for the last 18 months - Was that a sacrifice? You are literally the toddler of proper debate.

"Yes. Venus has lots of CO2 and is very hot. Mars also has lots of CO2 and is very cold. Conclusion? CO2 is not that significant in terms of planet warming." Perfect, so then please explain why Global average temperatures have fluctuated in the graph below? The sun has gradually increased its solar irradiance by approximately 4% in the last 500 million years (IIRC). There's no correlation with solar output and global temperatures either. So, by your definition, the sun is not significant in terms of planet warming either! Which would be an absolute ridiculous conclusion to draw. So please, what caused those massive 40 °F in changes?

"And yes, again, colder water absorbs more CO2 so the rise in temperatures along with the rise in CO2 is the first causing the second rather than the other way around."
Amazingly, you assert this, without once again providing any evidence for. I hope everyone else is following along because your habit of asserting things without evidence is literally why you're an F tier debater.

In response to the myth I am sure you are trying to spread, once again, a quick 13 minute video explains why you are very incorrect - with all the sources cited.

Why dont you go write a research paper, collect the data, and go win a Nobel prize for proving everyone else wrong.


Oh, and good job ignoring this point as well;

And I think it's funny how you say there are only two genders because all of the "scientific authorities" who you appeal to (you don't have any actual evidence) believe there are dozens of genders.

Please go back and quote my appeals to authority where I haven't posted the evidence for that claim. You simply not accepting the evidence based on absolutely nothing doesn't make the evidence invalid. You need to show why the evidence and conclusions are wrong, so, I ask you, please do that in you reply. I am happy to see what you have uncovered. Secondly, I doubt any researcher I have referenced has made a public statement regarding their belief on gender, so I can only assume you have made up the claim that all of these "scientific authorities" believe there are dozens of genders. Again, show me where you got this from, this is just another assertion from you - so far without evidence.