anybody who has studied this and is honest realizes the there is a PDO AMO cycle of 60 years and that half the gain from 1975 to 2000 is because of that not co2. The only part in dispute is how much of the remaining 50% is co2
Although I’m at the end of my rope, given your previous response, I will try to explain this a third time. Don’t worry, I won’t try a fourth time.
A person P makes a claim C. P further claims that anybody with attributes H and K agrees with claim C. An overwhelming majority of publishing climatologists with attribute K agree with a claim D. A claim E is agreed upon by all parties. Claims C and D, and E cannot be true simultaneously. Therefore, if P is correct, that large group of publishing climatologists—several hundred of whom have more than 10 climatology papers to their name — lack attribute H. Given:
P = You
C = less than 50% of warming between 1975 and 2000 is from CO2 (“half the gain from 1975 to 2000” is from PDO-AMO, and “the only dispute” is about how much of the rest is CO2)
D = “most” or “over half” of the warming in the second half of the 20th century is from CO2 (see Anderegg 2010, Verheggen 2014)
E = Global mean temperatures only rose slightly between 1950 and 1975
H = Honesty
K = Knowledgeable about climate science
That is, if P is correct then the vast majority of climatologists are dishonest.
The next day, however, P asserts that he absolutely respects scientists. Therefore, P is lying. Bolstering this conclusion, P had written an article entitled “You are an idiot if you believe climate science” the day before.
Now if P is a reasonable person with basic logical skills, he would do one of three things: (1) confirm that this analysis is correct, (2) say specifically where the logical error is in the above analysis, (3) disavow his earlier comments and his article entitled “you are an idiot if you believe climate science”.