So the next time someone shows that graph with the implicit or explicit claim that it implies a sensitivity of zero, point them to this paper which explicitly concludes otherwise. Who knows, they might even read it! nature.com/articles/s4146…

Have questions about climate science? Here are some answers! FAQs: + [Climate Science] nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/append… + [Climate Change] climate.nasa.gov/faq/ + [Climate Models] carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-clim… + [Climate] climate.gov/news-features/… + [Temperature Record] data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/

#Climatebrawl Notice how I give two examples that break his doomsday website, and he clams up like a kid caught with their hands in a cookie jar? Yeah... Ray's being misleading and he knows it.

Contrary to one's belief or opinion, an opinion means nothing with regards to science, or logic. It doesn't make an argument cogent or sound, thereby doesn't show truth, and it doesn't show any scientific understanding. All an opinion shows is what one wants to believe.

Oh look! John ignores the fact that plants need O2 to survive during the night, and assumes that because it's life giving it can't be a pollutant. I wonder if he's okay with eating his own shit and drinking his own piss then. Those can't possibly be pollutants, right?

Oh Look!!! John making a false cause fallacy and a false claim. That isn't a causal relation.

You don't seriously think a wool sweater warms a person do you?

Oh look! Matt speculates freely without evidence.

Graham asks a loaded question here and then makes a false assumption. I wonder if he'll notice it.

Climate denialism in a nutshell...

Bryan thinks I was talking about the Abortion itself.

Erik apparently thinks America is a communist country. aclu.org/news/reproduct…