I'm more than willing to engage at length on this, but this phrasing leaves room for backsliding or goalpost-moving later. It also implies you have other objections besides the issue you raise. I want an intellectually honest conversation where there is no chance to drag the conversation through the weeds or possibility of engagement in an obstacle-course style argument where an endless stream of objections is thrown up after the first is countered. Basically, I'm trying to provoke you to think honestly about your position and set a standard that can be falsified*. Please provide the a full accounting of what it would take to convince you that it is human-caused climate change. The reason is that I want to know ahead of time if it's even possible to change your mind on the issue. If your personal standard is, for instance, too high (e.g. Earth must become Venus-like), then obviously no amount of data or argument will meet it and I've wasted my time.
*Holding a scientifically-sound position means it includes the possibility of being falsified if a defined set of conditions are met. If it can't, it's speculative, hypothetical and/or faith-based and I'm not here to engage in that line of conversation.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume
in Climate Change
Posted
I guess you got your answer!