/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8004775
>accusing climatologists of Gish Gallop
what do you call this, then?
>>8002446
>>8002475
>>8002480
>>8002486
>>8002494
>>8002498
>>8002500
>>8002510
>>8002683
>>8002688
>>8002691
>>8002706
>>8002710
you post a bunch of poorly sourced and poorly labeled graphs, make a bunch of wild claims without providing any supporting evidence, and then ignore all refutation and simply move on to the next misleading/outright false talking point and demand that anyone who disagrees prove you wrong.
that's textbook Gish Gallop right there. projecting much?

and of course, when people with a decent (or even rudimentary) understanding of climatology weigh in, the sheer number of voices (and the amount of supporting evidence and reasoning brought to bear) against your claims isn't a sign that you might be wrong, to hear you tell it, but rather evidence that we must all be on the payroll of the shadowy and indeed fictitious cabal that you insist is faking everything. (as for myself? I do it for free, pic related. do you really think the illuminati would really care what people think on a vietnamese technical drafting imageboard?)

here's a good question: what evidence would it take to convince you that the planet is indeed warming as a result (in significant part) of human CO2 emissions? after all, your response to any evidence thus far has been "it must be faked, look at all these paid shills"; wouldn't that mean that no amount of evidence could ever convince you that you have erred? keep on clinging to your sad little denialist religion.