re: #205 Bagua

I fixed your conclusion for you, it is important to distinguish between science and religion when discussing science and religion.

OK now you are back to being a jerk.

Bagua, I would prefer not to have to fight with you, but you really just can’t help yourself.

This is not a matter of faith.

The science is clear that we are the primary driver. It is 100% clear.

Insulting me or the science by calling it faith is uncalled for and false.

You are not in the community. I am. I tell you what the consensus is, not the other way around. But you don’t need to take my word for it, you could actually start reading the papers before opening your mouth.

You are not a physicist. I am. You do not need to just take the explanations I give at face value. You could actually think them trhough. I have listed three smoking guns. Refute them or shut up.

Most importantly, you do not read the actual papers and look at the actual data. I do. Again, if you did actually know what you were talking about, rather than arrogantly claiming false things without a clue, you would know that there are smoking guns without me having to tell you.

So again. If you do not refute the facts in 105, you must conclude, that we are the driver.

If we were not, why is the atmosphere heating from the bottom up? Why is this happening where all the CO2 we dump tends to hang out?

If it were caused by solar variations, why has there been no marked solar variation sufficient to account for any but the smallest fraction of the changes we see (and even that is under strong debate)?

Do you think that the all the CO2 is doing nothing?

Why are we warming when as far as orbital variations are concerned, we should be cooling?

There has not been a significant increase in volcanic activity to account for the increased CO2 and more over, if it were, there would be sharp jumps in the Keeling curves. We do not see that.

So Bagua, what is left in your “expert” opinion that is not us?