Since you don't get to declare what I know or don't know, your statement is an omniscience fallacy. Your use of the word "since" to assert that your argument depends upon your claim of omniscience , gets your argument discarded.
This is incorrect. Altering the standard deviation of the temperature dataset would not imply a change to the average global equilibrium temperature.
More avoidance.
It also wouldn't NOT imply a change. You cannot rule out that changes to the composition of the Earth's atmosphere wouldn't impact temperature. You may not want to believe it could, or be willing to admit it could, but you cannot rule it out.
False. I have not avoided any argument of yours involving greenhouse gas' effect on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.
The empty statement, i.e. the statement that says nothing also does not imply no change. Your EVASION of an argument involving greenhouse gas' effect on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is isomorphic (i.e. equivalent) to a statement that says nothing.
Statement discarded.
I have discarded your statement in its entirety.
You do not know this. You merely believe this because Wikipedia ordered you to believe it, and you strangely believe everything Wikipedia orders you to believe. That makes you moderately stupid.
Clearly you don't want to have an honest conversation. Anything inconvenient to your position you discard without responding. The funny thing is that you treat your opinion, which supports what you WANT to believe, as though it's fact and write off anything that doesn't support what you want to believe.
What is there to discuss if you are both unwilling to admit, despite evidence to the contrary, that average global temperature can change?
You have to stick with the thread topic.
Tell the class in 17 words when you're ready to discuss Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.
Where is the topic is temperature of any kind mentioned?
Playing stupid won't work.
Lying won't work.
YOU are the one who is showing no interest in conversation about Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.
Projection won't work.
Sexual references won't work either.
Well put.
What is there to discuss if you are both unwilling to admit, despite evidence to the contrary, that average global temperature can change?
What is there to discuss if you are both unwilling to admit, despite evidence to the contrary, that average global temperature can change?
You have no evidence of this. I'd love to discuss this, but there is still no reason for any rational adult to believe this. Merely redistributing thermal energy cannot alter the average temperature any more than you can slice a pizza such that you somehow have more pizza.
I have no evidence because you deny anything inconvenient for your argument. There's an obvious reason that Mercury has a much lower temp than Venus, despite being closer to the sun, but you dismiss that fact because it's inconvenient to your argument.
You have once again confused cause with effect.
You don't know that it does. Nobody does.
"You don't know that it does. Nobody does."
Nope. I dismiss that which is not true, and you confuse that which is not true with that which is true.
You're once again pointing to your religious clergy and asking me to consult with your minister because he somehow explains it so much better than you do.
"That which is not true" is anything that runs contrary to what you want to believe.
You are continuing to prove my point by dismissing things that run contrary to what you want to believe as "religious beliefs".
Sure. I'll reach out to NASA right now and let them know that message board poster IBDaMann disagrees with their assessment of the average temperature on Venus and Mercury and wants to cross examine them.