/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10460444
>Yep. You said it wasn’t, so you have the burden of proof.

Fallacy of reification. You can't just say "prove this doesn't exist" when it never had any basis in reality to begin with.
>Sad attempt to shift burden of proof.
>No you have to reify a shadow before I take you seriously
I'm not providing evidence of the absence of something, it's illogical. Prove it's actually real first then we can talk about how it correlates to human behavior.

>Oh, I love this canard. Care to provide a citation?

Vostok Ice core samples (AKA the most comprehensive study done on the planets climate history)

>Curious. Now you admit there is a warming trend but claim it’s “natural”. Prove it.

Never said a "trend". I said "natural phenomena". You're telling me to prove a natural phenomena when there's already proof of its existence. It's empirical. "Weather" happens. "Seasons" happens. "Change" in general happens, but only through failed explanations has this been correlated to humans. Now where's the actual proof of that correlation.

>>10442930
CO2 lags behind temperature according to your precious vostok icecore samples. Now fuck off you pseud.