Quote from: m0gliE on January 07, 2019, 04:04:58 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on January 07, 2019, 03:57:36 PM

Once again, that's not how it works, as anyone with a high school level science education knows. Empirical data doesn't become "meaningless", and neither do theories. The fact is they are simply not interchangable even under these circumstances.

Damn, seems my engineering degree is false then.

Let's do some revert thinking then. What would you accept as a reasonnable evidence of climate change proof?

I KNOW that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, but the fact is that pretty much everyone agrees that the provided evidences are, by large, enough to prove the claim. You're saying it's not the case.

Please then what would be a solid proof?

If you are an engineer I hope to Christ you don't engineer anything people's lives depend on. Either way engineers are not research scientists. Engineers are trained to be told what a data-set and tolerances are and follow that, they aren't trained in research science, so the fact you have an engineering degree is meaningless.

Lets not do some "revert thinking" where you try to pawn off the burden of proof upon me when it is yours as the one presenting the premise. "pretty much everyone" does not agree, and your supposed support of that claim has been thoroughly demonstrated to be garbage already in previous analysis of your "94% of all scientists" figure.

Instead of solid proof, how about you start with some empirical data, ANY EMPIRICAL DATA... AT ALL.

Quote from: m0gliE on January 07, 2019, 04:28:25 PM

Quote from: coins4commies on January 07, 2019, 04:19:53 PM

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Of course but TECSHARE is simply denying that.
There are proof for temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activity producing CO2. There aren't any data for the link between the two simply because such data can't possibly exist. And all his argumentation is to say that the linked aren't proven because there is no data which is a complete logical fallacy of course.

But I already tried this way so I'm trying another right now. I have few hopes but well...

You don't even know the definitions of the words you use and you are trying to lecture me on scientific theory. There is no link between climate change and human activity proven. End of story. There is no fallacy here, except you trying to claim it is a fallacy.

Quote from: coins4commies on January 07, 2019, 04:19:53 PM

Quote from: m0gliE on January 07, 2019, 03:00:53 PM

I'll admit there is no scientifical data linking temperature rise, CO2 levels and human activities.

What?

No data supporting the greenhouse effect?

No data showing how much carbon humans have released into the atmosphere?

Maybe you meant there is no deductive proof but the association of combustion--->CO2----> warming is solid

Oh look, its Captain Postmodern with his astounding powers of poor reading comprehension just to round this all off.