Sivad wrote:You can make all the claims you want, proving them is another matter.
You have yet to provide evidence for any of your claims.
And you seem confused about the difference between proof and evidence.
You apparently believe that science is just a matter of collecting the evidence and deducing the facts, that's not the reality. That's a laughably naive conception of science. What your dealing with in real world science is ambiguous indirect evidence that can be interpreted in any number of ways depending on the assumptions you bring to it. And so all theories are underdetermined and with most of them it's unclear if they're even empirically adequate. Science isn't about truth, it's just best guesses based on available evidence and there's no guarantee that the evidence available is sufficient to reach a conclusion so more often than not the guesses turn out to be wrong.
If scientists were honest they'd say 'based on these assumptions and according to the available evidence we think x might be a possibility but we really don't know'. The bullshit that comes out of climatology like "97% consensus" and "incontrovertible fact" and "rock solid evidence" is just blatant mendacity. Those fuckers do not know and any of them that claim to know are either deluded or lying.
I am ignoring your whining about how newspapers write articles about scientific topics.
Now, unless there is evidence for climate change being caused by the sun, I will continue to regard this claim as unsupported speculation.