>>80462570
Show me another time on this earth that the C02 rise was before the temperature rise.

>>80462570

The sun causes climate change?

>>80462623
>Temperature and CO2 are directly related and one precedes the other
>CO2 is the only factor in climate change
No scientists say these things

>>80462643
Didn't answer the question

There's probably a handful of people on the planet that are even qualified to talk about this topic given how complex climate science is and how reliant we are on computer models.

The idea that anyone here can say anything about the science is absurd. Even more absurd is thinking that the US government can come up with the correct regulations to change the earths climate to some sort of unspecified arbitrary average temperature that will ultimately be decided by bureaucrats. What is an acceptable change in average temperatures? How much economic growth are we willing to sacrifice to accomplish that? Are we sure that the regulations we're proposing will even accomplish their intended goals? What about every other nation on the planet?

>>80462904
>I don't want the govbent to control the weather like a thermostat
Are you literally retarded?

Why do climate change scientists always feel the need to lie about every year to being the "hottest year ever"?

Furthermore, whenever there is a heat wave or string of cold temperatures, it's always climate change according to the same scientists. But when normal weather resumes the scientists are silent. What gives?

I don't know about you, but if climate change was obviously true why do lies and exaggeration originate in the scientists who so obnoxiously claim it to be so? Seems very weird, like they are hiding something.

>>80462570
somebody should ask trump about it as a "hardball" question and watch him destroy it


notice how they don't for precisely that reason

>>80463430
They HAVE asked him about it and he's given a retarded answer every time. Example: The Chinese dun did it. Retard.

>>80463339
Didn't answer the question

>>80462851

What evidence will change your mind?

>>80463733
>Didn't answer the question
There was no question, unless that past-tense statement was meant to be a question you were asking us in the present tense. Let me fix it for you: As a climate change denier, what evidence would change your mind?

Here's my answer: Actual proof that climate change is being caused or accelerated by man. I've yet to see any proof that this current climate change is any different from the climate change that has been occurring throughout the history of Earth.

What evidence will change your mind?, OP?

>>80462851
Did i stutter faggot, every single one of you spouts the C02 bullshit every single time like it ends the argument.

What do you know about Methane and its effects on the atmosphere?

Of course the climate's changing. You just can't prove humans are doing it.

>>80464400
>Actual proof that climate change is being caused or accelerated by man.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

The title is disproving the assertion that evidence is only "empirical." Lots of hard evidence there.

>BUT THATS NOT REAL PROOF WHERE IS THE RPOOF

>>80462570

I would change my mind if scientists pushed for real solutions based on engineering principles such as co2 removal. IF real, then global warming is not an environmental problem. It is an engineering problem with an impact on the environment.

Proof: how did all of that co2 get into the atmosphere in the first place? From machines that engineers built.

You can't fix engineering problems with "solutions" that have nothing to do with engineering