You are not a scientist. A scientist won't willfully ignore scientific facts.
Linking to National Review to attack science? Wow. You are just spewing denialist nonsense, as always. Your anti-science zealotry is really quite scary.
The problem is that you are completely unable to evaluate scientific data and reasoning. You think that text supports your nonsense, but it doesn't. It only exposes your denialist, anti-science views.
After all this, the conclusion is that pastafazou is lying through his teeth. He has spent a lot of time explaining that he refuses to post his sources. Why did he not spend this time to post them instead? It's because he doesn't have them. He's making stuff up. He's lying. Typical denier/creationist/etc.
You are constantly spewing new lies in your continued Gish Gallop instead of answering my questions. What was the relevance of your comment?
Other planets warming? No, Mars and Jupiter are not warming. And your other source is a site dedicated to conspiracy theories! Awesome... You sure know how to pick'em!
And again you keep bashing actual scientists while at the same time obsessing over Al Gore (who is a politician). Typical denialist moron.
But your last paragraph is telling. You are basically admitting that this is all about politics to you, and that you are denying simple scientific facts because you are worried what someone might do about them.
Yes, but I have never watched it, and I never will. It's irrelevant. It is not a scientific paper. It is not peer-reviewed. You are an idiot if you are attacking science over what some politician said.
Actual scientists were consulted about what to put in that movie.
Sources, please. Don't just make up claims like that. Come up with proper sources and citations. I already exposed several of your lies, so you are clearly not trustworthy.
So, cold weather means its getting warmer too?
If you really think global warming means that every spot on the surface of the earth is getting hotter each day, you are an idiot. At least educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
What about another Ice Age?
What about it? The planet is warming.
Ignorance is bliss if you refuse to use your brain and substitute govt. propaganda.
You are an ignorant fool. You are spewing lies and denialist talking points. You should educate yourself instead of spewing lies.
And again: Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists. And you think local cold weather disproves global warming?
When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation.
No it means that I'm pointing out that you are just spewing the same old denialist talking points.
"talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand.
The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.
I never said it was globally.
Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.
You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right?
Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.
Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too
No I didn't. The article is based on a shitty piece of pseudoscience (really, really shitty) by creationist and "God decides the climate on the planet and there's nothing science can do to change that" moron Roy Spencer.
There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere.
You mean the very, very old predictions that actually turned out to be rather accurate, and actually predicted less warming than we have seen?
I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker
Says the moron who blindly believed in creationist loon Roy Spencer's pseudoscience. Your crappy article even repeats the old "they predicted an ice age in the 70s" lie.
I am not appealing to consensus. I am pointing out that Lindzen's research has failed to refute the consensus position.
You are too clueless, so please search for "CO2 lags temperature" at skepticalscience.com to educate yourself.
It's a blatant lie that models are exaggerating anything. Please stop lying.
Lindzen is clueless about sea levels, and he should shut up about things he is clueless about.
The argument "humans produce only X% CO2" is completely idiotic. How about you try a swallowing tiny drop of strong poison. Surely you would be willing to do that, because surely small thinks can't possibly affect big things?
You made the claims. It's your homework to support the claims you made. Of course, you are now proving that your claims were blatant lies. Otherwise you would have come up with actual sources.
Of course they don't contradict the consensus. The consensus is not that global warming is going to cause a serious catastrophe in the world.
The consensus is that the observed warming is caused by human activities, and that there will be a large number of negative effect that outweigh any positive effects of the warming.
Anyone who tells you that CO2 is poison, or that "we need to do something now!" or warns you about a clathrate gun that will destroy humanity, is an alarmist and not being scientific.
Lindzen is not using scientific arguments in his speeches. When he is using scientific arguments (in his research), they do not contradict the consensus, or fail to refute the consensus.
The activity of the sun has had a downward trend for nearly 40 years. At the same time, the global temperature has gone up. Once again your denialist talking points fail miserably because you are too ignorant.
So what if Florida is not under water. Why would you point out the obvious fact that Florida is not under water? Did actual scientists claim that it is under water? You are not making sense.
Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists.
You think local cold weather disproves global warming? Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Of course you need to cite where you get your information. Otherwise anyone can just make up whatever claims they want. Like you are obviously doing, because if you weren't you would be more than happy to post your sources.
Do my homework for me? I'm not the one who made the claims, so it's your homework to provide sources for your claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you not actually disagree with what I wrote?
You are not a scientist. A scientist won't willfully ignore scientific facts.
Linking to National Review to attack science? Wow. You are just spewing denialist nonsense, as always. Your anti-science zealotry is really quite scary.
Now, what was the relevance of the comment?
I'm afraid you are unable to see your own ignorance. You are zealously attacking science because the facts don't match your ideology.
The problem is that you are completely unable to evaluate scientific data and reasoning. You think that text supports your nonsense, but it doesn't. It only exposes your denialist, anti-science views.
After all this, the conclusion is that pastafazou is lying through his teeth. He has spent a lot of time explaining that he refuses to post his sources. Why did he not spend this time to post them instead? It's because he doesn't have them. He's making stuff up. He's lying. Typical denier/creationist/etc.
You are constantly spewing new lies in your continued Gish Gallop instead of answering my questions. What was the relevance of your comment?
Other planets warming? No, Mars and Jupiter are not warming. And your other source is a site dedicated to conspiracy theories! Awesome... You sure know how to pick'em!
And again you keep bashing actual scientists while at the same time obsessing over Al Gore (who is a politician). Typical denialist moron.
But your last paragraph is telling. You are basically admitting that this is all about politics to you, and that you are denying simple scientific facts because you are worried what someone might do about them.
Funny you should quote a text by someone who accepts the fact of man-made global warming. You are indeed a fool.
Yes, but I have never watched it, and I never will. It's irrelevant. It is not a scientific paper. It is not peer-reviewed. You are an idiot if you are attacking science over what some politician said.
Sources, please. Don't just make up claims like that. Come up with proper sources and citations. I already exposed several of your lies, so you are clearly not trustworthy.
If you really think global warming means that every spot on the surface of the earth is getting hotter each day, you are an idiot. At least educate yourself before spouting nonsense.
What about it? The planet is warming.
You are an ignorant fool. You are spewing lies and denialist talking points. You should educate yourself instead of spewing lies.
And again: Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists. And you think local cold weather disproves global warming?
No it means that I'm pointing out that you are just spewing the same old denialist talking points.
The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.
Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.
Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.
No I didn't. The article is based on a shitty piece of pseudoscience (really, really shitty) by creationist and "God decides the climate on the planet and there's nothing science can do to change that" moron Roy Spencer.
You mean the very, very old predictions that actually turned out to be rather accurate, and actually predicted less warming than we have seen?
Says the moron who blindly believed in creationist loon Roy Spencer's pseudoscience. Your crappy article even repeats the old "they predicted an ice age in the 70s" lie.
Check what out? This crappy list of engineers and other non-scientists who are completely incompetent?
Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. I realize that you hate science and can't be bothered to refer to actual scientists, though.
Why would I not label something as what it is?
I am not appealing to consensus. I am pointing out that Lindzen's research has failed to refute the consensus position.
You are too clueless, so please search for "CO2 lags temperature" at skepticalscience.com to educate yourself.
It's a blatant lie that models are exaggerating anything. Please stop lying.
Lindzen is clueless about sea levels, and he should shut up about things he is clueless about.
The argument "humans produce only X% CO2" is completely idiotic. How about you try a swallowing tiny drop of strong poison. Surely you would be willing to do that, because surely small thinks can't possibly affect big things?
You are a clueless denier. That's all.
Again: Citations. Put up or shut up. And stop spewing lies. If you don't want people to call you out on your lies, stop lying.
Again, sources please.
The denier fails again. Why can't you educate yourself about what the science says instead of making up nonsensical denialist claims about it?
Yet another false claim. I can't believe that someone can be as willfully ignorant as you!
I wrote that science deals with evidence, and not proof. You responded by disagreeing. Did you not actually disagree?
You made the claims. It's your homework to support the claims you made. Of course, you are now proving that your claims were blatant lies. Otherwise you would have come up with actual sources.
The consensus is that the observed warming is caused by human activities, and that there will be a large number of negative effect that outweigh any positive effects of the warming.
Denialist nonsense as usual.
Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points, aren't you?
Quote from that global cooling article: "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community"
Good job, denier.
The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??
Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.
You, open to science? Hell no. You can't even get simple, basic facts right!
Models are wrong? No, they are in fact very accurate.
You fail again, denier.
You still failed to address his points.
Lindzen is not using scientific arguments in his speeches. When he is using scientific arguments (in his research), they do not contradict the consensus, or fail to refute the consensus.
Are you seriously claiming that science deals with proof and not evidence? Wow, you deniers sure are ignorant about science.
Those experiments and repeatable results... You know what they are? Evidence!
You fail, denier.
Your claim about climate models is also a massive failure, and only exposes your ignorance.
Yes, denialist talking points and lies, like the lie that the CERN CLOUD experiment supporting denialist claims. Exactly.
The activity of the sun has had a downward trend for nearly 40 years. At the same time, the global temperature has gone up. Once again your denialist talking points fail miserably because you are too ignorant.
Wait, so a curtain is not flat, and a tent is a globe? Wow...
So what if Florida is not under water. Why would you point out the obvious fact that Florida is not under water? Did actual scientists claim that it is under water? You are not making sense.
Please point to your sources for this alleged lie by scientists.
You think local cold weather disproves global warming? Ignorance is bliss indeed.
Of course you need to cite where you get your information. Otherwise anyone can just make up whatever claims they want. Like you are obviously doing, because if you weren't you would be more than happy to post your sources.
Do my homework for me? I'm not the one who made the claims, so it's your homework to provide sources for your claims.
I don't need to prove anything because I didn't make any claims. You made claims, so you need to come up with your sources.
What IPCC predictions are you referring to? Link please. What actually happened? Link please.
You hate science, because if you didn't you would want to provide sources for your claims.