Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, you are not even talking about climate science any more.
Right, because you made a deliberate choice to change the subject to my English language skills.
You are simply telling all of us that you are smart
No, you made that up. I merely informed you of the evidence that your claim that I lacked English reading comprehension ability was objectively false.
Right. I am.
and awesome and perfect and blablabla.
No, you made that up, too. You apparently like to just make $#!+ up.
This is not an argument.
Right, because YOU are simply telling all of us that you don't intend to respond to any of my arguments, preferring to pretend that you do not understand clear, simple, grammatical English.
If you have an argument or a refutation of the evidence already presented, please write it out in one or two clear sentences.
I have. Here's one:
Demonstrating that the earth has warmed since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years and that atmospheric CO2 has increased during the same period due to human use of fossil fuels, and claiming that the latter must therefore have caused the former, is a bald post hoc fallacy, not climate science.
I have others. You just pretend that you can't understand them.
Please be advised that you will be asked to provide evidence. Thank you.
Identifying logical fallacies DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EVIDENCE other than the fallacious argument itself.