Yes, they will always, and rightfully so, claim that correlation does not equal causation. Unless it is in reference to their claims.
Your third point is a bit ambiguous to me. "Common" is a moving target. Even more assuredly under a changing climate. "Common" is what is happening now based off of what has happened in the past. This may not be so common in the future or may become even more common than before. Which would be uncommon in of itself. ... Sorry, this is the best I can do on this one.
Are you denying there has been minimal warming (less than 1C) over the past 133 years while CO2 levels have risen 40%? Is that over-generalization to you?
"Global Warming" has to do with a "forcing effect" that humans have that forces temperatures upwards. What is that "forcing effect" and how do you determine it? What temperature is the defining factor that makes "Global Warming" from CO2 levels (40% rise?) a "catastrophic" level?
Where does "evolution" fit into your scenario? Are humans an evolutionary process from apes and therefore have no control over the climate simply due to the evolutionary process? Shall we blame the apes and eradicate them now for CO2 levels being so high? Or is it the shape-shifting aliens causing us to use fossil fuels?
Is the "carbon dating" process ever a subject of 'speculation' with AGW Science? ... or is AGW science accepting the evolutionary theory and basing all carbon footprints on the evolution.
Are you sure that A, B, and C are actual letters? ... or are they made up by shape-shifting aliens who only want to communicate their desires of a 1-World (or 1-Universe) Government? Why would anyone "ever" want to respond to any question that doesn't bring them to their "end" (help them out)?
This has more to do with English and English is a tool to be used by greenies against science.
Your logic also is a tool used by greenies for their favor. In your example, "For I and II, I'm basically thinking things like "In a warming world, severe droughts will become more common" vs "There is a severe drought, this proves that global warming is true".
Al right then let us say that is true. Then when we have plenty of rain, that proves GW is false. You see, your accepted logic is a one way street and it is a good example of the twisted logic of the AGW advocates. Here is an example expressed on this site many times over.
1. South Dakota is under extremely dry conditions. The rainfall this year in parts is as low as 1.5 inches. This proves that we are under a severe Global Warming attack.
2. South Dakota crop production will be down this year due to the fact that they are having an extremely wet year. Farmers cannot get in the fields to plant their crops. This is due to weather conditions as a result of Global Warming.
It would be nice if we could lay down things as simple as 'A', 'B' and 'C' = Global Warming, but when they don't occur the AGW advocates move the goal posts. For example, the Sun provides 'X' amount of heat. CO2 artificially traps 'Y' amount of heat. Therefore, Earth's temperature is X+Y (which is a function of CO2 level). CO2 level increases, yet the Earth's temperature remains the same or decreases. Now we go looking for the missing heat or in some other way move the goal posts.
In true Science and in Logic, the goal posts never have to be moved.
Droughts are common anyways so how could anybody tell the difference .
There is no proof that Super-storm A or Typhoon B was agitated by climate change.
There would have to be zero Hurricanes or typhoons in recorded history.
If the precautionary principle depends on your logic Id rather take my chances.
I have no idea what your question alludes to
You guys will be swallowed up in glaciers before you admit that CO2 is not causing global warming.
It's been a rough year, hasn't it?
I hv no idea ....sorry
Time for another round of "spot the denialist over-generalization". The A and B (and, where relevant, C) in each pair are placeholders, and not the same from pair to pair, I'm trying to show general patterns
1. Action A would have desirable effect B
vs.
2. We should definitely do action A, because it has desirable effect B
A. If A happens, skeptics will probably say B is true
vs.
B. A happened, so B is true
I. In a warming world, we would expect A, B, and C weather events to be more common
vs.
II. If A, B, and C weather events occur, this proves global warming
Where practical, please give specific examples (either related to AGW, or entirely unrelated but commonly understood) illustrating the differences between those statements.
