1. We KNOW the earth is warming.
Nope. Nobody somehow knows this. This is just religious dogma of your religion. Many people BELIEVE this because their religious dogma commands the congregation to BELIEVE, without question, that Global Warming is KNOWN, and to BELIEVE this under the BELIEF that Global Warming is OBSERVED. Ergo, devoted worshipers such as yourself roam the earth preaching the "Bad News of the Word of Global Warming."
If you actually knew this, you would be able to post the rational basis thereof so that I could know this as well. However, just as it is in any religion, one is required to BELIEVE
first such that no rational basis ever need be given. It's all part of the "You must BELIEVE without question."
Who is this "we" in your point #1 anyway? Don't worry, I'll answer that question for you. It is the Marxist "we." It is the pronoun used by dishonest people who wish to present their own unsupported opinions (or to preach their religions) as though they are absolute truths that are somehow already accepted by the entirety of humanity, and thus do not need to be supported in any way ... AND ... to insinuate that anyone who questions the unsupported opinions/dogma somehow bears the burden to support their rejection of the dogma.
Your statement should have read "I BELIEVE the earth is warming." That would have been an honest, truthful and accurate statement.
No one doubts that anymore.
Did you write this with a straight face? Right off the bat, you knew that I, the person with whom you are discussing this matter, reject this item of your dogma. How can you say that no one doubts it?
Then we have to explore why you believe that anyone would believe that you somehow speak for everyone, or why you believe you can read everyone's mind? Let's jump to the chase. Can you and I both agree that you do not speak for everyone and that you cannot read anyone's mind?
2. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing IR photons
This is a stupid statement. There is no such substance as
greenhouse gas. All substances absorb IR.
3. We KNOW energy doesn't just disappear.
Exactly. For the same reason, we know that energy does not simply come into existence from nothing. There is no matter anywhere in the universe that somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional thermal energy, and thermal energy never pops into existence out of nothing.
4. We KNOW we are producing alarming levels of greenhouse gases
I'm not producing any
greenhouse gas. There is no such substance as a
greenhouse gas. Similarly, I tell Christians that there is no such thing as "the grace of God" to be found anywhere, but they politely grin and ignore me as well. Science makes me unpopular with religious people.
(sufficient to alter the isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 exactly as one would expect, increase 12-C over 13-C, decreased 14-C. (Human fingerprint)
This is gibberish.
5. We KNOW a great deal about NATURAL FORCINGS which affect climate
There is no such thing as a global climate. A "forcing" is just your religion's word for "miracle", which means "an event that defies physics."
(Paleoclimatology) and we cannot rely on the natural forcings to explain the warming we see.
Let's relish your usage of the Marxist "we" as those who "see" (OBSERVE) the Global Warming of your religious dogma.
No human has ever observed any change to the earth's average global temperature, precisely because no human has ever known the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy or margin of error. In order to be a warmizombie and fall for the unsubstantiated claims of Global Warming, a warmizombie must be mathematically incompetent, such as yourself (this is not meant as a jab, just as an observation). You clearly have no working understanding of statistical math, otherwise you would not have made this totally stupid comment. This is why mathematical incompetence is a prerequisite for a target of Global Warming recruiters. The Church needs to ensure that potential indoctrinees do not have the cognitive wherewithal to call bullshit on any of the gibberish they will receive that is intended solely to confuse them.
What you have told me is that you have never demanded to see any valid, raw data for any determination of earth's temperature, never ran your own linear regression on that data to ensure it fell within the stated margin of error, never reviewed the instrumentation tolerances of that used to collect the data and never cross referenced any of the above with any other datasets. I'm standing by in anticipation of your forthcoming stupid question of "Why does any of this matter? I TRUST the thientithts ... that I have been told to trust ... and I OBEY ... so what's wrong with that?"
Here's one of the most interesting graphs I ever saw from the IPCC.
There is no such things as an interesting graph from the IPCC. There is no such thing as anything interesting from the IPCC. There is no such thing as anything honest from the IPCC.
The IPCC is, after all, a Marxist disinformation center. Material from the IPCC is usually discarded immediately with extreme prejudice.
What do you think about this chart:
Researchers took 150 years or so of temperature anomaly data
Do you have any idea what this amounts to? Have you seen this particular 150 years worth of data? What did your analysis on this data reveal? I presume that you are aware that for any study to be valid, the RAW DATA MUST BE PUBLISHED. So, I'll take you on your word that this analysis occurred. Just post that raw data here (the specific data that was used in this particular study that you cite) so I can analyze it.
I'm certain that you weren't gullible enough to blindly accept any conclusions strictly on the basis that you were ordered to adopt them, or strictly on faith without having at least reviewed the raw data that presumably obligates said conclusions through standard statistical math.
... and tried to fit it to NATURAL FORCINGS as well as ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS.
Gibberish. This only makes sense to those already indoctrinated into your religion who have been told to NEVER ask what any of those undefined buzzwords mean.
When you look at JUST the natural forcings
You mean "When you look at the church literature, i.e. the provided graphs ..."
