You are right. A consensus is not evidence but when that consensus is made up of people who daily deal with the evidence, it sure is more significant than your ever changing arguments.
I`m amazed at the flat out bull shit that comes from your mouth. Yes, the exact effects of humanity on global warming is not 100% understood but every scientist worth their salt knows that humanity plays a major role. They base their conclusions on empirical evidence so if you say the evidence isn`t there, you are calling the scientific community liars.
As for the second part, go look at that old thread where you tried to claim that anthropogenic global warming wasn`t the same as human driven global warming.
Yet you keep claiming that the IPCC backs you views.
The IPCC is a scientific community charged with collating all the data. It is primarily made up of scientists. Of course since you want to discuss empirical evidence and not the IPCC, you should try reading up on the hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers discussing global warming and the impact of anthropogenic CO2. Of course you would rather not and continue to play word games.
Simple fact. Over the past century, the world has been warming at a rate far greater than any other period of human civilization, atmospheric CO2 is significantly increased during that time due to human activities, and the thermal properties of CO2 are well understood. Despite all the empirical evidence, it is you who has their head in the sand.
As to why I argue with you, I have a scientific background and am mildly OCD so I get worked up when people flat out lie about science.
Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean a person is lying.
Once again, your post contains too many errors and misrepresentations (sadly, some misrepresentations once again appear to be intentional) to address. And, frankly, many of the errors have been dealt with before, in great detail (
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated).
Let`s deal with just a couple:
1. Mankind`s possible influence on the climate vs. man-made global warming.
It`s surprising that someone who claims to have a background in science is struggling with this. It`s not difficult to grasp.
Most people are willing to accept that mankind`s existence on the planet -- the building of large cities, etc. -- may have affected the climate. I`m sure there`s a consensus around that.
However, the definition of anthropogenic global warming (as your side defined it) refers quite specifically to the premise that the burning of fossil fuels is causing unprecedented warming of the planet.
One can believe that mankind has affected the climate without necessarily believing the fossil fuels premise -- particularly since the predictions about how increases in man-made CO2 would affect the climate were spectacularly wrong.
2. The IPCC "backs" my views.
That`s not what I said.
I said the research findings in the IPCC`s AR5 report confirm that we don`t know whether or not man-made CO2 affects the climate.
As James Lovelock and others have clearly said, we simply don`t know what the climate is doing (
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change).
However, I do not claim that the activists who are driving the IPCC`s agenda support my views.
I think the IPCC could have overcome its enormous credibility problems if its AR5 report had acknowledged what was clear to everyone who looked at the actual data in the report (I`m sure you don`t need me to provide all the press reports again). Indeed, I think all of us -- regardless of our views on the issue -- would have admired such intellectual honesty.
Regrettably, though, that`s not what happened.
Instead, the politically driven IPCC responded as expected to the evidence ("nothing to see here, folks"). It circled the wagons, downplayed the results, and plowed ahead with alarmism as usual. Convincing ever-decreasing numbers of people along the way.
You claim to have a background in science. If true, then you should be leading the charge to scrap the IPCC and -- if such an international body is needed -- replace it with a body that is committed to science rather than political agendas.