Example: The Medieval Warming Period. They know way more about it than you. They described it. It does not change their minds.

Dude, I don’t look for upvotes when I post in this stream. I know it is full of rabid conservatives.

If I were looking for upvotes here, then I’d just post yet another meme of Nancy Pelosi’s face.

Why would I take up arson, lol? According to you guys, every new “arsonist” (whether proven guilty or not) is just another nail in the coffin in the entire theory of climate change

You’re wrong, but... why would I give you more fuel for your fires?

It is people like you burning shit down to try and make it seem more real. You cannot make up weather dummy. It has been here longer than us and will be here after.

The idea that Australians would deliberately burn down their own country just to make climate change “seem more real” to some morons living half a world away is probably the most insane thing I have ever heard you say about this

Yes, all the tremendous devastation in Australia right now is all an nth-dimensional conspiracy directed at you and your pocketbook. Keep truckin’ with that.

And I’m sure any Australians reading will greatly appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

You are not a fan of watching what is happening are you. They arrested over 200 people for Arson and 50 have admitted starting them. So........maybe you just are not paying attention.....like normal.

Oh and they are all climate change freaks. Like you.

[image deleted]She is not paying attention. Too busy making up bullshit.

People start fires every year.

Why did this one (really, these ones, since it’s all over the country) get so out of control? The fact it was so hot and dry.

A large concentrated group can be disastrous. Same thing in California. The sad part is the reason there is so much dead bush laying around goes back to the green effect. A lot of communities that would have done safe burns and created fire breaks stopped doing it and began using solar power. Great idea except it created a surplus of even more dry brush than normal in the past. There are a lot of factors it cannot all be blamed on one I admit but it surely cannot be blamed on weather cycles. A lot of fires are caused because in a strange and hard to believe way fires in nature help keep a balance. New growth etc. There has been evidence of large scale fires before we became a large cause and I say we as humanity in general. But you can randomly point in a thousand directions. It does nothing. Sad part is they will never know if it was a large group of people for sure. People tend too lie about such things.

I dislike the % agreement arguments as science is about facts and proof neither of which are determined by popular vote. Also most sources that give the % numbers lie and screw the numbers to make it look more one sided.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are NASA liars?

Yes as Cook's study is notorious for being a blatant lie that's own data makes the conclusion wrong. Expert credibility in climate change does not support the 97% number, as that is not the goal post that the study itself used. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change also does not support that conclusion by listed different categories based off of research activity. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change covers why is is dumb to try to put consensuses into a simple yes and no and speaks to the skeptics not having good information.

As such none of these papers actual support 97%,shouldn't be cited as such, and these type of unnecessary lies make people distrust the science. In the end listing the number either way is a distraction, as the data not the polls make science and show that man made global warming exists.

Forget about the consensus then.

What would specific proof of man-made global warming look like to you?

MMGW exists and has plenty of evidence for it like the average temperatures increasing over time and the increased green house gases that are produced by human activity.

What I objected to is flat-out-lies being used to support an narrative that is completely unnecessary as it has no impact on the truth at all. These lies are they type of thing that made people dismiss the actual evidence.

And for the consensus, I agree one exists and depending on how the standard is stated, you can get up to 95%. People like to use the 97% and while stating a standard that gets a lower number and lie about it. Doran-Zimmerman-2009 is a good example as it used many standards with the most framing at 97%, but people tend to reference it with the standard that gives just under 80% and claim that supports the 97%..

To be clear, when I say "forget about the consensus" I am being tongue-in-cheek. The consensus exists and it means something.

Your own issues with the allegedly "notorious" Cook study and the 97% figure do not invalidate the notion that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the consensus. Other papers have examined the field's attitudes and reached similar results as Cook. Whether that consensus figure 97% or 95% or even 90%, it's still a vast majority.

But since you raised issues with it, for purposes of this debate I am comfortable continuing as if the consensus does not exist at all. What would specific proof of man-made global warming look like to you?

I didn’t know scientists believe global warming is a religion

But many of them are taught in school as if they have been proven.

Well except the entire global cooling issue and the nine planets thingy thing......and there were some issues with Dinosaurs as well,,,,,,in fact more have been wrong than right it seems. So don't assume. Ass out of U and Me. Assume.