Climate Change, page-922

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

And

"Why dont you ever cite a research paper?"

And then:
"Please go back and quote my appeals to authority"

Unbelievable.

Nobel Prizes are about *opinions*. What *you* deem to be a valid *research paper* is based on your *opinion*.

None of these things addresses the facts and therefore are fallacious.

And I did laugh about your sun data. Why would I care about that? I never made any claims about the sun. The onus is on you to prove that catastrophic climate change is being caused by CO2 and reducing said CO2 is a much more effective strategy of avoiding said catastrophes than adaptation.

All you ever do is say "this guy is a scientist and he agrees with me that we need to stop burning coal".

"Amazingly, you assert this [rising temps lead to rising CO2 released from oceans], without once again providing any evidence for"

???

You literally already agreed it was true. If colder oceans absorb more CO2 then, ceteris paribus, warmer temperatures lead to rising CO2. That's the direction of causality. Now, if it was a positive feedback loop (which is what climate change "science" [inadvertently] claims) then we would have had a runaway global warming a long time ago.

But no such event has transpired, so it's not a positive feedback, ergo, rising CO2 *does not* cause rising temperatures. The Mars situation reinforces this.

QED. No amount of "research papers" can change that. Maths tells us that climate change "science" is a lie. Given a choice between maths and trans activists masquerading as "scientists" I'll trust maths.

Of course, even if the "science" was true, you would still have the impossible task of arguing for CO2 reduction rather than adaptation.

So there you go champ.

Your F Tier debater literally proved mathematically that you're wrong.

How stupid must you be feeling right now?