Maybe you don't understand the difference between an opinion piece...even one written by a climate pseudoscientist and observed, measured, quantified data that supports one hypothesis over another. If you don't, just ask and I will be happy to explain it to you.
Sorry trapper, but alas, it is you who is stuck in 8th grade mode. Remember, I have seen what passes for "evidence" in your mind. Someone tells you a thing and you believe it. If you remember, that was the nature of primary school science, once we got older, experiment, observation, and measurement became the method...and learning the difference between correlation and causation.
Every piece of pseudoscience you have provided thus far states an opinion...not a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are contributing to the global climate over simple natural variability.
Have I not stated categorically that I favor draconian fines and prison sentences for polluters? But pollution and climate change are two different things. Start a pollution thread and we can talk about it and lament the trashing of the earth, and spoiling of the water as much as you like...but pollution is not climate change and is not contributing to global climate change.
Typical...attempting to defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable. They are tampering with the records in an attempt to maintain the warming narrative...
But back to that statement you made about seeking "actual evidence" lets see some...no...lets see a single piece...a single shred...one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the claim that we are contributing to the changing global climate rather than simply observing natural variability.
