Please have a look here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The evidence is clear and uncontroversial (and has been for decades).
The evidence is clear and uncontroversial (and has been for decades).
It's a standard tactic of skeptics. Ask a simple question. Takes only a minute or two. But the answer turns out to not be so simple, and requires much time in composing an answer. And of course the answer also invokes concepts, terms, models, research, etc that themselves are not simple, and so the questioner asks another round of "simple questions", which take significant time to answer. After a few rounds of this the answerers are exhausted and the questioner proclaims victory in the sense that he/she still has questions, and the answerers "can't" answer them, typically because they have jobs, kids, significant others, and in general a life outside answering skeptic questions.
There is a tremendous amount of literature on this in both the popular press and scientific journals. You can google those as easily as we can, and if you were serious about finding the honest answers to your questions that's where you would start.
If the answers are '[so easily googled]', why haven't you provided any reference, or better still answered the questions posed?; (instead making yourself a considerable effort to publicly slander me as a timewaster, whilst my posts are censored).
Wasting your own time is foolish. Wasting others' time is an offense.
Why is it the replies to my questions do not answer the questions, instead saying 'google it'. How can google answer what is mean in that context, in that article? I have asked here on hackernews, and I have still not gotten an answer - only piffle: nobody has forced you to engage here, so don't spout nonsense such as time-wasting; I have asked you a question, not subject you to an interrogation at quantanamo.
Bingo