Maggie's Farm

If I cite the theory of a spontaneous creation from nothing, does it prove a Big Bang? If I cite a theory on quantum entanglement, does it prove relativity?

You post like nobody's ever heard of the greenhouse myth, Z's.

You're funny. You've just leapt from natural atmosphere as a modulator to manmade CO2 as a catastrophic driver. Like I just asked and you avoided, can you prove the Big Bang from a theory? Well, can you?

Or, given that confirmation bias, let's take it down a notch and see where this next thing gets us: Do you see weather here, Z's, or climate? https://www.windyty.com/?temp,86.811,-165.039,4 (midday 12/30/15)

You might want to take care with your answer. Do you know why?

Remove "just" from my comment, Gang of Z's, and revise "myth" to conjecture, if you wish.

Now answer the questions put to you. Is theory fact and weather climate?

It should be reasonably clear that when I say you are dabbling in the greenhouse myth I refer to the conflation of general solar atmospheric greenhousing with the unproved AGW conjecture by a similar name. Since AGW seems intent on proving itself a myth these days, whichever cause may effect either weather or longer-term "climate" is reasonably said to be independent of man made CO2.

(That CO2 is reputed not to be a greenhouse gas is another wrinkle, as is the fact that it lags temperature, as is the fact it varies wildly by epoch, as are the facts that it's a trace natural gas and a man made mathematical triviality as gasses go. I'd be more concerned about the methane leaking out all over from time to time.)

But let's get back to the unanswered questions. Even assuming that AGW is real - which meanwhile we cannot know and which gives so little evidence as to be considered false, the sneaky bugger - the science of AGW (such as it is) is not proved by the greenhouse theory.

Hence, as a persistent argument for AGW, it's myth. The greenhouse myth.

Likewise weather vs climate. Given that AGW proponents tout this season's abnormally mild temperatures in a thin finger of Atlantic longitude up to nearly the north pole, obviously calculated from any short-term weather data climate is not affected.

(I challenged you to comment because 1) that strip to the pole is so narrow as to be an obvious departure from the norm, 2) this year is atypical that way, 3) all of Siberia and arctic Canada is -20F, and 4) the water-encircled south pole is also symmetrically very cold, even in early summer. Anyone can see from a simple global weather map that what's touted as a man made catastrophe in late 2015 is weather.)

I think it's fair to conclude that we don't know if AGW is real, we haven't proved it, we tend to conflate greenhousing with proof against either anyway, and we constantly conflate weather with climate.

I don't much care, myself - especially when the evidence is so inconclusive. Maybe AGW exists, probably it doesn't. Meanwhile solar factors and solar system factors seem the more logical drivers. The Earth has a variable wobble, it has a precession, it has an electrical circuit with the Sun, and so on. The Sun is another enormous variable, and in at least a few fundamental ways. Ice core data shows enormous temperature fluctuations ... each with a resultant fluctuation in CO2 of some degree.

What are we really left with? As far as I can tell, zip. Things change. We don't know why but we can theorize and if we're not careful, we can replace observation and reason with theory.

Ten: It should be reasonably clear that when I say you are dabbling in the greenhouse myth I refer to the conflation of general solar atmospheric greenhousing with the unproved AGW conjecture by a similar name.



That's like how the left falsely claims charity and goodness just by owning the associated language. I'll drop in some misspelled words next so the team can claim more intellectual high ground.

Ten: Since AGW seems intent on proving itself a myth these days, whichever cause may effect either weather or longer-term "climate" is reasonably said to be independent of man made CO2.



It didn't take long for that fallacy to reappear. It reads: Theory = reality. Bonus points for claiming the earth is a natural positive feedback system. Light a match and Indonesia goes underwater!

Ten: That CO2 is reputed not to be a greenhouse gas is another wrinkle ...



Silly? Funny, it's a proven fact that CO2 has been determined to be an insulator. I'd have thought a team of crack experts would have found that, given the collective expertise on tap.

Ten: as is the fact that it lags temperature,



Word salad. CO2 lagging temperature is a documented fact. The crack team is making false claims, sadly.

Ten: as is the fact it varies wildly by epoch



Imagine my relief.

Ten: as are the facts that it's a trace natural gas and a man made mathematical triviality as gasses go.



I love how on the internets reality is asserted and reasserted endlessly.

Ten: Even assuming that AGW is real - which meanwhile we cannot know



And yet you quote theory.

Ten: the science of AGW (such as it is) is not proved by the greenhouse theory.



More conflation. I believe a crack team's word for it is handwaving.

Ten: Given that AGW proponents tout this season's abnormally mild temperatures in a thin finger of Atlantic longitude up to nearly the north pole, obviously calculated from any short-term weather data climate is not affected.



And yet, per a crack team's chronic cause and effect inversion, the jet stream has been forced between highs on two North American continents, forcing warm air northward toward the pole between Greenland and the UK. The crack team says El Niño, I say tomahto.

Ten: I think it's fair to conclude that we don't know if AGW is real, we haven't proved it



Science hasn't proved water is wet? Anyway, so a crack team is reasserting theory. Thanks. [Insert my own random link here countering yours. The Internet never lies.]

Ten: Meanwhile solar factors and solar system factors seem the more logical drivers.



A crack team ignored most of my comment. Which pointed toward how a vast new field is opening up wherein the Sun's plasma and electrical fields are primary drivers here on Earth. A crack team would look into it. I'm not particularly motivated to.

Ten: That's like how the left falsely claims charity and goodness just by owning the associated language.



My language was confusing because a crack team choose to use it to dodge the still-unanswered questions put to it. (But I'll accept that a crack team doesn't challenge the assertion that the left co-opts language. This exchange has been a sterling example.)

Ten: It didn't take long for that fallacy to reappear. It reads: Theory = reality.



That CO2 is said to interact with infrared as a complete and universal proof of AGW can be directly observed to be a handy dodge to avoid a crack team avoiding the real issue, which is that a crack team continues to conflate theory with proof. With reality. And as evidence mounts, even against reality.

Ten: CO2 lagging temperature is a documented fact.



CO2 fundamentally lags temperature, meaning that CO2 does not induce temperature, which in turn defeats the AGW assertion. That, then, leaves a crack team once again against the thorny question if greenhousing proves AGW.

A crack team may wish to now deploy ACC in the place of AGW. (I'm just following the logic.)

Moreover, Earth is not the climactic positive feedback system a crack team habitually asserts. That is, CO2 and temperature are not capable of interlocking in the runaway greenhouse effect a crack team numbers among its many handy assertions about CO2, among them being an explanation for every global temperature effect known. Because I've been through this so many times with said crack team, by now it's obviously doubling down on the obvious fallacy that whatever happens, it's all AGW all the time. I find that senseless, no matter how many cites of local or laboratory theory a crack team can exchange for its assertions about real unexplainable global phenomenon.

Which is where we invariably come back to: Does theory = reality. No, it does not. In the present case theory doesn't explain reality when a crack team needs to first harness every known outcome in order to claim they all subscribe to the same cause. To AGW. Or ACC, as the case likely will be.

Ergo:

Ten: I love how on the internets reality is asserted and reasserted endlessly.



Pfft. See: Endless sources contradicting the notion that theory is reality, that the Earth is a positive feedback climactic model, that AGW is real, (that ACC is real), and that crack teams know the difference.

Ten: More conflation.



Only when a crack team first obliterates context in order to, as noted, reduce them to local theory standing in for real global phenomenon, which isn't scientific. Meanwhile, the by-now rhetorical question if AGW theory proves AGW (or ACC et al) is itself proving to be a remarkably resilient question. Almost as if it was never asked at all.

Ergo:

Ten: Anyway, so a crack team is reasserting theory.



I was generating a comment about proofs, actually, such as the proof that spontaneous creation caused the Big Bang or that quantum entanglement got along with a relativistic universe or that CO2 is drowning its world. In effect.

Observations about the latter - given their disconnect with the real phenomenon that commonly contradict them, and given the fierce connection to assertions of AGW anyway - aren't themselves strictly scientific, are they? (But it's good to learn that an otherwise humorless crack team can still enjoy the irony of red-herringing the nature of science, so to put it. Surely Ten can't rise to its level, and like that.)

Ten: Which pointed toward how a vast new field is opening up wherein the Sun's plasma and electrical fields are primary drivers here on Earth.



Most crack teams already have them, their physicist and progenitor achieving Nobel laureate decades ago.

Or is science complete? That could be an option, and an exciting one! AGW/ACC is proved by the theory about AGW/ACC. Is it? Imagine what that shortcut will do for the field of cosmology. Astrophysics. Let's add that question to the others a crack team finds itself ruminating over.

Ten: My language was confusing ...



Um, I said because a crack team chose to use it to dodge the still-unanswered questions put to it. In other words, when. Given that. Pursuant. Because of. There's a conditional in there a crack team snipped. The little rascal.

So is a crack team now editing yet other language in an attempt to rob other intent? That could be construed as handwaving. And it'd be even more diversionary the second time around when the question remains whether theory and reality - whether theory and proof - are interchangeable. Which they are not, and which leaves AGW/ACC in as bad a shape as was already clear.

Any of this sound familiar, crack team? Repetitive?

Ten: That CO2 is said to interact with infrared as a complete and universal proof of AGW can be directly observed to be a handy dodge



I'm denying your greenhouse myth, crack team; the myth that man made CO2 causes planetary climate change, warming, cooling, whatever, because it does not, notwithstanding you conflating theory, microclimate, weather, narrow observation, whim, and sheer unmitigated assertion with science, because, as we all know, science is not a destination. It is a process, and the AGW/ACC field is anything but solidified into a proven finding, leaving it too a field of endeavor. A process. Even as badly as it's proving itself lately.

So you know what I'm more than implying. It's what you're obscuring: The notion that theory = reality is false.

Ten: CO2 fundamentally lags temperature, meaning that CO2 does not induce temperature



A crack team is not explaining. It is asserting and handwaving over evidence to its contrary. Regardless, a crack team now appears to be saying the Earth isn't in long term thermal equilibrium after all, which given the natural climate record, is an obvious blow to the AGW argument by another means. You can't win going there either, crack team. Your AGW/ACC effect was and is already swamped. How? The long term record and your own assertion about feedback systems.

Ten: That is, CO2 and temperature are not capable of interlocking in the runaway greenhouse effect



Ah, expected. And yet a moment ago you said otherwise.

A crack team's theory may now even include system equilibrium at the same time as it promotes system positive feedback, which is runaway chaotic behavior by any other definition. And you wonder why I question a crack team's incessant conflation of theory and reality.

A crack team's theory doesn't even fit other theory. It's swamped by natural causes. And it contradicts itself. Expectedly. If I were a crack team I think I'd try playing the consensus card now because this other stuff isn't adding up.

Ten: Does theory = reality. No, it does not.



Heh. The more the crack team is exposed on that central, unanswered point, the more it deploys the fallacy of "science" by exclusive narrow redefinition. Not unlike the fallacy of reinventing definitions and robbing intent. See, your findings - your scientific observations, crack team - are as yet as inconclusive as your assertions are contradictory. I genuinely hate to break it to you, but there it is. Kindly reconsider co-opting "science" as in the sense that a theory constitutes a proof. Thanks.

Ten: Pfft.



Having taken over the language - conflating theory and reality by repeatedly bypassing the proof word - now a crack team gets back into intent. No, I am not handwaving, nor am I unaware of the "empirical evidence". As a scientifically-minded literalist, I'm challenging a known fact: That if a crack team proves AGW/ACC, it'll have uniquely done so in the world.

You ever think about that? Because this I'd expect would win one heck of a Nobel. I'd even apply a crack team for the honor. Seriously. The good to humanity would call for no less.

Ten: Most crack teams already have them



Ah, I see. Now I'm a liar too. Apply for your own Nobel.

A crack team still appears perplexed by the appropriate questions. Let's review:

1. Ten posits that the constant refrain that CO2 = AGW (like the greenhousing theory about CO2 = proof of AGW, ACC, et al) is false. It is unproved and further, appears to possess some inherent contradictions.

2. A crack team, perhaps thusly caught out, doubles down on the CO2 assertion, or what I call the greenhouse myth per AGW, ACC, et al.

3. Endless circularity and diversions ensue, each intended to reassert that CO2 = AGW = proof because science!, as does a crack team avoiding the pertinent questions about same, avoided at least in any direct sense.

4. Said denial and diversion naturally comes to constitute a reasonable basis to doubt a crack team's efficacy and motive. Mildly entertaining repetitiveness then ensues after which a crack team, apparently perplexed that the assertion that the AGW/ACC construct actually does not rise to the level of science and proof, infers Ten must be a de facto liar by introducing other system drivers perhaps unknown to a crack team.

For his or her part, Ten feels no compunction to introduce a crack team to what it's evidently never felt the compunction to consider, confirmation bias being what it is. Yes, Ten repeats, there is a vast and relatively new field emerging wherein scientists are reevaluating how the Earth's Sun drives the system. Evidently there's another chapter here that at least some crack teams are up to speed on. Some.

To which Z's crack team, probably out of its depth - it's fallen into a simple rhetorical trap, namely that it has bias and conjecture but neither true science or proof by science - deploys the following detached thoughts, starting with a delayed reply to Ten's notion that: "It'd be even more diversionary the second time around when the question remains whether theory and reality - whether theory and proof - are interchangeable."



Correct. Thank you for not going there three times when two was enough. A crack team's assertions that AGW and greenhousing and CO2 and whatnot are therefore indeed not proved. This is true. They are not the same.

We have finally established that AGW has assertion to found it, nothing more. There's nothing wrong with this, per se, just a little understanding seemed in order as to what it actually was.

But does a crack team still wish to own the associated language, perhaps so as to reassert some semblance of former assumed authority? From the following it seems likely pronouncement:



Well then. As I've been instructing a crack team all along, AGW is a theory, and as I noted, that as a theory it's not fared especially well lately. A crack team of a crack team's obvious scientific intellect surely can recall that among other notes, I factually reported that 1) man made CO2 was scientifically deemed mathematically incapable of inducing AGW, that 2) CO2 was found to be a miniscule atmospheric driver in the first place, that 3) in situ, CO2 was found to be an insulator as well as a greenhouse gas, that 4) the sun was the key and perhaps only driver, that 5) the sun had as-yet not understood electrical and plasmatic influences on Earth likely to swamp AGW as a purported phenomenon, that 6) positive and negative feedback systems coexisting likely defeated the AGW scenario, and others. (More about #6 below, where a crack team may find itself confounded at where its logic finally led it.)

All of which predicted a crack team's eventual concession, tacit or otherwise, that AGW was unproved and perhaps even that given the profoundly inconclusive evidence, it could prove not to be a science either. One genuinely can't know these things, so sparse is the scientific finding to date.

Nevertheless, a crack team permits itself to reassert its alternate reality, thusly and unconditionally:



...the basis for this being a crack team's other assertion, which is: because. Just plain because.

Okay, fine. Provided a crack team leave it there. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, in the abstract, and leads to abstract warming, forget the serious challenges to this detached remark. Whatever. It's not worth filling in the details.

But a crack team cannot leave it there, to wit:



I see. Despite the page full of following the argument, a crack team feels it necessary to hand wave. To rob some more meaning and intent, this time by revising the written page w/i hours of it being written. Because Ten, being a liar, refuses to follow the desired "argument", having followed it and a crack team's lead for days so as to fisk each point thereof.

I'm disillusioned anew! I find I'm no more inclined to apply a crack team for the Nobel for uniquely proving AGW/ACC than I was last time around! For not only has a crack team tacitly retracted it's faulty premise that AGW is proved, but now it, in decidedly un-crack teamesque fashion, has raced its own goalposts out the home team's exit and out onto the side road and folded them up into its '67 Chevy van.

Because clarification. BECAUSE SCIENCE!

But there's yet more SCIENCE! And here it is:



Of course sound does not increase without end. Are you aware of the fixed rail voltage and the device amplification factor? Distortion increases to patent pending should you wish to adjust it to that level within a negative feedback system (NFB), but the amplifying device - whether operating with simple local regenerative feedback or global feedback - doesn't self destruct because it is operating w/i electrical limits, by design.

Or. It. Couldn't. Amplify.

AGW positive feedback (PFB), on the other hand says a crack team, infers that output error increases input error increases output error increases input error endlessly. No rail limits, no amplification limits, no adjustable level or feedback. This is because there is no separation between signal and system, as per your assertion that climate is a PFB system (until it magically hits expected NFB, or something, which magically renders it a NFB system).

In Earth, to the majority of what I understand to be the point of your assertion about CO2 and temperature, until all the atmosphere boils off and having heated themselves the oceans evaporate into space, the signal is the system. A crack team's electrified Roy Rogers guitar, as awesome an axe as it is, comprises a circuit within which a distortion is intentionally produced up to the signal limits of the circuit itself. There is no risk of systemic harm when the signal reaches the limits of the devices producing it. It simply stops distorting more.

An amplified Roy Rogers couldn't care less what it's output waveform was doing, that being the desired distortion + original signal. At all levels, the distortion is stable because the system is not inherently parasitic on itself.

The Earth has no such limit, at least within a crack team's arbitrary construct where positive feedback exists until it magically does not.

Why? That's your choice. Because, as I said, if NFB and PFB oscillate together, obviously you have no basis for the AGW signal because the system is already chaotic and thus, already driven vastly beyond man's mathematically puny influence and infinitely beyond man's control. There, AGW simply does not exist. It scientifically cannot. The ice core record shows orders of magnitude more variance than the present modern state. The oscillation thereof shows either or both NFB or enormous variations of solar forcing.

Or you can deny your dual FB system and allow AGW to exist, having abandoned the argument that CO2 is both cause and effect. But if you deny the CO2 PFB system, you are left with what the earth actually is, which is a normalizing, leveling NFB system per CO2, and simply incapable of AGW and its prime tenet, which is CO2 PFB.

Which also happens to fit the direct evidence.

PS: If you happen to rewire the amp on your Roy Rogers to run in positive feedback - the amp, not the Buzz Lightyear humbuckers - it'll blow up. The signal has nothing to do with it. The circuit's inherent noise floor is sufficient to drive it all into self-destruction.

Does the Earth's purported dual NFB/PFB system, per AGW proponents, strike you as that unstable? Crack teams have perused the ice core record, surely.

***

A crack team is advised to get serious: Let's assume AGW exists. It may very well. If it does, shouldn't crack teams play by the rules of science - the same ones every crack team cites - and come to regard the very real issues inherent in its assertions?

Literally defining futility:



I said you're false. I said AGW is unproved. That's what I said, in written word, on this page. How do I know? Because I remember and because you agreed.

Why is a crack team fabricating falsehood? OOPS! Trick question!



Cause and effect assumption, repeated assertion, unproved hypothesis. Again. And again. And yet again. Or didn't you already admit what constituted an unproved hypothesis, per your own definition of science? OOPS! Another trick question!



How fantastic is that. But you didn't provide jack to prove AGW, that being the problem I started you off with. What was that bullshit you trotted out about not following the argument, team of crack?



You've asked nothing. AGW is theory. You said so. In writing.



Of course science deals in proofs, team of crack. Even so, what fallacious connection does that have with your unproved theory? Still conflating? OOPS! Trick question!



Mount McKinley interacts with CO2 therefore it is a greenhouse gas, team of crack scientists. WalMart too. And the Pacific. Most of the Brooklyn Bridge. Damn if it doesn't all interact with CO2.

Oh you mean by your definition, right? Oops. Yup, trick question again.



That's funny, I thought interaction with CO2 was proof of AGW, as in Tater Tots interact with CO2. Atmosphere has no insulating CO2?



Yes, atmosphere does have insulating CO2! So CO2 is both insulator and AGW reactor, per the lying unscientific Ten lodging that claim above on behalf of scientists who state no less. You're such a Crack Team.



So is the stock market and KFC gravy but by now, really, who gives a damn? And by the way, those weren't questions, they were observations on your funhouse world of mirrors.



To a funhouse world of mirrors, I'm sure it is.



I have to jam a thumb in one eye and look through a straw with the other to be a Scientific Team of Crack? Lesson learned!



It just doesn't prove AGW, ACC, and the funhouse world of mirrors Scientific Hypothesis on the Duality of Simultaneous NFB/PFB Systems, that being what all a crack team's ankle-biting has been about.



...Team of Crack droned on endlessly. Calculations were done on relativity a buncha years ago too and yet it remains, SHAZAAM!, a theory! But Edsels will interact with CO2 if you leave them outdoors long enough. And anvils. Brick walls. Buckets and buckets of obtuse positively boil with seething AGW CO2, Team.

Drill some holes in that plastic recorder and try more notes. It can do it and I'm confident so can a crack team.



And having invoked the Feedback Paradox Rule, Team of Crack both owns it and reduces it to a single half-baked summary, avoiding the entire mechanism as well as handily avoiding to address the central conundrum of AGW theory, which is that it relies on one of two conflicting feedback mechanisms in order to exist.



Wow, that's dim. But considering the limited programming, inventive. Does revisionism keep the grant dollars flowing? Because kudos!



I shouldn't even be allowed in the room, right?

To summarize:

1. CO2 is thought to raise temperature;
2. Except for the thermal equilibrium part;
3. Therefore CO2 PFB happens until;
4. It doesn't. NFB! Math! Observation! Funding!
5. Man made, hypothesis, SCIENCE!, interact, take-away chicken tenders, convection, research, cling film, magic trace insulating/reflecting gasses, water vapor, the poles, eelgrass populations, and lab supplies;
6. Rob some meaning and intent. Because SCIENCE!;
7. Revisionism! For good measure!
8.
9. You scientifically ignorant liar, Ten.
10. Win!

But back to the team's latest reversal, so Earth is a NFB system wrt CO2. Let me guess, when it goes into dual PFB CO2 regenerative runaway feedback, spontaneously heating by negative induction terminology, reaching humbucking equilibrium before amplifier cycling into accelerated anti-phase thermal spin, and cyclonically reducing gravity beads due to the friction of stratospheric looping eagles, thus shedding carbon epistemologies into the stellar vortexial parallelism.

SCIENCE! (And I bet there's funding in that, it being observation of a hundred years of observation.)

You're preposterous. Look, just claim the win and pat the crack team Turing machine on the back. I give it to you.

Now you're even conflating yourself with climate science. Good luck with that, spokesman.

Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth's Climate

"To learn more about how such tiny variations in solar energy might impact terrestrial climate, the National Research Council (NRC) convened dozens of experts in many fields, such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry, fluid dynamics and energetic particle physics.

"Many of the ways the scientists proposed these fluctuations in solar activity could influence Earth were complicated in nature. For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course. [Sun's Wrath: Worst Solar Storms Ever]

"'In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light,' climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.

"When the ozone is removed, 'the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions.'

"These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. 'The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes,' North said. 'So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove.'

"In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.

"When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.

"'The Pacific is particularly sensitive to small variations in the trade winds,' Meehl said. Solar activity may influence processes linked with trade wind strength."

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

Silly solar physics scientists over at that dump U of CO and climate scientists at that hole TX A&M and folks at the funny farm known as the NRC must not have gotten the news that science doesn't deal in proofs, and that nature is so simple that assertions about finite systems that rely on inherent contradictions of feedback mechanisms somehow constitute valid hypothesis.

And especially, somebody tell these poor men that despite their ignorance, crack teams elsewhere have been observing observations about simple CO2 models for a hundred years.

And then there's that important field some crack teams have yet to encounter, although to be fair, when they do they still won't. QED!

https://youtu.be/VaTGsPr1r54

Who, duude. It's almost like it's all an unproved theory, to take highly partisan sides in which would be like - among all the other previously exposed unscientific AGW/ACC/whatever zealotry - fallacious.

Especially for crack teams.

I mean, duude. Wouldn't be like totally boss if, like, somebody actually said that and all?