Excuse my typos. Please go after the warmists with something that will throw them for a loop. It's called the Scientific Method, and you should bring it back from the grave.
It's the process of casting a testable hypothesis, which can succeed or fail based on experiments. Those can even be thought experiments as pushed by Einstein himself, but the experiments have to be good physics.
Here is your favourite, global warming.
We propose the hypothesis that the temperature of the earth is totally controlled by levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and no other means. The physics (or mechanism) is that the atmosphere acts as a glass greenhouse, and carbon dioxide levels control the amount of infra-red radiation going back into space.
Method of Testing
The hypothesis can be tested by several means. The first is tracking the future temperature and co2 levels. As a blanket, a linear increase in co2 can only lead to temperature rising by the square. Since increasing temperature releases more co2 from the oceans, this will lead to a square co2 and cubic temperature. There is no back-off from this runaway reaction. Look in the past when co2 has risen. Did all life die?
The physics or physical mechanism can also be tested. In clear air, shoot a laser to a satellite and back. Can you see the absorption? Is it increasing in time? Measure the die-off of the daily sun temperature in clear air. Is it slowing as co2 increases? Study clear air convection since the hypothesis states that such heat transfer is less than 10% that of radiation.
These are absolute, any variance from the results expected of the hypothesis invalidates it. Under no circumstances should there be continuous modifications, due to new information.
**I just found out that this is posted to FB, so I have to give the answers.
-temperature is flatlining, probably soon to go down, no cubic
-all life didn't die, witness me writing this blog
-absolutely no measurement confirms the infra-red effect
-convection is 99.9.....% of atmospheric heat transfer