>>13370429>What mechanism is creating a PID here? Do you actually think this is an answer?You had no idea what a PID was before I told you admit it, which is why you're mindlessly repeating the question without even understanding what you are asking. I already gave you an answer, you are just ignorant.
>Yes, it means that your analogy is begging the question by assuming that 100 years is equivalent to 1 second for a car and not a year. Are you fucking kidding me? You don't know what "begging the question" is either?
I said scale proportionately. Your lack of comprehension is like saying a rock in a slingshot twirling around your wrist with a designated barycenter between your wrist and the rock isn't analogous to planetary bodies in orbit with each other because duuur it happens faster with a rock
>This wouldn't be "doing the same" since the IPCC don't rely on one paperThey cherrypick particular papers for particular aspects they want, how is me doing it once and them doing it many times any different?
>And this paper has been thoroughly refuted. Its methodology is wrong and its conclusion is falsifiedYou are just pulling things right out of your ass, it's pathetic.
>semanticscholar.orgThey claim the paper overestimated by a factor of 2, which still puts it their CO2 levels of radiative forcings
>acp.copernicus.org/articleswhy did you even post this? It has 3 of the same authors with the paper I shared and has nothing to do with "debunking" it. You just randomly copied this one without even reading it huh?
>agupubs.onlinelibrary.wileyOne guy decided the entire team's paper was wrong so ... you're siding with him? Cherry picking
>research.ed.ac.ukThis is just a paper that gives a different opinion, yes those do exist in science.
Nothing here refuted the paper I gave, invalidated it, or "falsified" their conclusions.
At best one real paper simply reached a different conclusion. You're a little shit for trying pass this off as something different
