@Geezer

"1 + 1 = 2" is indeed arithmetic. In exact science 1 + 1 is a neat 2. I only stated that meteorological and climate science is not exact and you will never find a neat two.

The nice thing about algebra is that in that field of sport proving things is just for the fun of it. I can live quite happy without knowing the proof. Anyway you seem to be clever enough to find it out yourself.

Talking about proof.
Until some weeks ago gravitational waves was only a theory. That didn't mean that before that it was complete and utter bullshit. A clever person takes theories into account even if they are not proven. To give an example: There is absolutely no proof that when I drive a car at high speed through a crowded area while completely and utterly drunk that this will cause an accident. Still I take the theory into account that this probably is a bad thing to do so I don't do it.
Therefore even if climate change / global warming / ACC is only a unproven theory still it should be taken into account. Even the Pentagon is taking it into account and they are not exactly known as a bunch of leftwing do-gooders.

Indeed scientifically climate change / global warming / ACC is not proven. A real scientist will not say anything is proven until it really is, still they work with the facts known.

This leaves open the possibility for individuals and groups to shoot at it when this is in their interest and this is done by those with interest in the fossil fuel industry and by politicians that think to get more votes when they deny it from Joe with the Ford F150.

The discussion about what percentage of scientist are pro or contra does not interest me. The point is what are their agenda's and who pays them.

Vicar comes with proof for his climate change doubt with references to a Nasa article that he clearly didn't read or read and not understood. The text is however quite clear:
"The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,"
And this is his proof ;-)

Napoleon AK "I can't say I personally have noticed it becoming hotter. Colder maybe" Which is a statement that he has not noticed. Well that is interesting to know.

Then he goes : "In 99% of recent drought, politics, not weather, is the problem." Where he clearly mixes up cause and effect.

Call me a prick for calling them ignorant. I wear that name with pride.

@Napoleon.

Yes my mistake reacting to people like you who are known trollers at this website.

Should have realized that brushing against your hair only makes things worse and that it makes no sense doing so.

The Prick.

@Napoleon.

"I thought you were quoting my text to show how stupid you were."
Thought = past tense, so this means you no longer think so. Apparently this is not the case.

For somebody who does not have an opinion about the topic you write a lot of stuff. Why?

The Prick.

@Napoleon.

Glad that you now see reason and that the penny has dropped.

@Vicar

First read stuff before you comment on it. I wrote "exact sciences". Exact science is science in which 1 + 1 = 2.
Climate change is about a few degrees more here + a few degrees less there = overall a higher temperature.

The reason why I copy your own text and Napoleons is to show how stupid they are.

The Prick.

PS
Good that you saw the light and now start quoting The Dudeson's