Here we go. You can't produce even the smallest shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence to support what you believe, neither can you name a single physical law that supports or predicts a greenhouse effect as described by warmists and the cornerstone for AGW so now you are going to go about wringing your hands and erecting strawmen to joust.
By the way, the mechanics behind global warming that real science provided are hard, observable, verifiable fact, unlike the smoke and mirrors you believe in.
Well, at least one of us is operating from a position of belief. Alas, it isn't me. I am only swayed by facts and physical laws when the topic is science. I can name multiple physical laws that state explicitly that AGW as described by warmists simply is not possible and can do the math necessary to prove it. Want to do some math?
The one in which you claimed to have provided any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activities of man and the changing global climate. If you were claiming to have presented such evidence, then you have lied.
None of your statements make a connection between the activities of man and a changing global climate.
I don't make absurd accusations. I, unlike you, only make claims I can substantiate.
