That is because I am not willing to engage in an exercise whereby people like you try to "muddy the waters" enough for people to think there is a genuine debate to be had when in fact there is not. For exactly the same reason, I do not argue with creationists. I just tell them they are wrong. The creationists know they can't ever win that debate. The only purpose of continuing to argue is to sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of those who might be influenced.
I've debated with and converted an Intelligent Designer. Wasnt hard, I had facts, examples, experiments.
He didnt agree that it disproved God, but he happily accepted that life forms can change quite drasticaly over relativly short periods.
The (serious) debate about human-created climate change via the release of greenhouse gases was OVER at least ten years ago.
Yeah, so you say, yet you still cant point at me the grand unifying theory of Climate.
If only other serious scientific debates could be declared over by one group.
Apart from anything else, we know enough about the physics involved to be able to say as an absolute certainty that releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases will destabilise the climate. It would be a physics-busting miracle if it did not.
Yet you still havent actualy proved this, you've just said it. Those are different things.
And then there's the small matter of both the poles warming by several degrees over the past 20 years.
Which others argue is an entirely natural event, and can show periodic warming and cooling over various areas historicaly.
20 years is a pointlessly short space of time to gather records from.
This is the last I will say on the matter here. If other people are silly enough to argue with you, that is their business
