Did you even read before slamming your denialist fingers onto the keyboard to punch out irrelevant stuff I already addressed? I said that theories are not facts and do not become facts, but I said that to non-scientists, we might as well call scientific theories facts. They are not facts scientifically speaking, but in layman terms.
Do you not even know what Evolution is? Jesus... Like most climate deniers, it seems that you are a creationist!
Wow, that's a lot of useless text. I mean, you are an idiot who linked to a Wikipedia article on Global Cooling, which in the very first paragraph pointed out the following, which completely contradicts your idiotic claims:
This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.
Considering that all you are doing is to spew denialist lies I'm not going to bother with the rest of your anti-science rant.
Lovelock did not start it. In fact, he isn't even a climate researcher, and has published no relevant scientific papers. He is and was a fringe loon, and using him as a reference here is completely insane. That he now admits that his claims, that no one else supported, are not coming true, is irrelevant to the actual science.
Of course, you wouldn't know science if it smacked you over the head.
I don't know who these scientists were who were trying to convince people about global cooling, because even back in the 70s the consensus was that the planet was going to get warmer.
What error am I supposed to admit? Are you insane? Christ, you deniers are really something...
Oh, so you don't even know the basic scientific facts? And yet you are so convinced that your fact-ignorant opinion is correct! You don't even know what experiments and data there is! Wow, you deniers sure are ignorant.
Honest skeptics are not called deniers, because they will not deny scientific facts. Climate skeptics universally accept AGW as being correct because that's what the facts show.
Where and how did the person you replied to call actual skeptics deniers?
A climate denier is someone who denies the science and scientific facts. Simple as that. Why are you talking about atheists all of a sudden? This is about climate science.
You yourself are a true believer of science. You have no way to verify that the science behind most things you take for granted in your daily life is correct. You just assume it to be because you know from experience that science works. So you are nothing but a damn hypocrite.
There is only one side, and that side is science. And the science is clear. The warming is man-made. You may lack the understanding, but the scientists don't.
I seem to recall a NASA report that was grossly misrepresented by denialists. You may be referring to that, and that means you have been fooled by denialist lies.
You seem to be incapable of getting the actual facts behind claims made by the denialists you so blindly trust.
Another example: Your claim that the models are shit. Utter nonsense.
And another: Clouds. Once again based on denialist lies about actual research. I remember that one too.
Now: Do you also doubt that neither the scientists nor the creationists are entirely correct? That you are biologically agnostic?
Actually, denialist and deniers are terms used to describe people who deny scientific facts. They are descriptive and convenient terms that make it easy to convey the message that those people reject "inconvenient" facts out of hand. I never used the word "heretic."
The fact that you think past climate change is a huge surprise to anyone shows just how little you know. Maybe you should educate yourself about what scientists are actually saying before using idiotic straw man arguments like that?
Whether Mars is warming or not is irrelevant. Other planets in the solar system are not warming.
I'm not sure why you think James Lovelock is relevant. One guy without any relevant research to back up his claims is useless. You deniers hilariously cling to anyone who seems to support your religion.
If we can pare down all the fanatics and the deniers through exhaustive vociferousness, maybe we can finally have a reasonable scientific discussion on the topic.
They already are. In actual scientific publications, where actual scientific discussions take place.
And almost all of the other comments deride ACTUAL scientist who happen to have a different view
Who gives a crap about their views. It's the science that matters. And it just so happens that their published science does not match their personal views. In other words: They have failed to support their opinions with actual science.
You pointed to a site run by notorious liar Piers Corbyn, who has one of the worst records there is when it comes to predicting the weather. He's an ignorant little cunt who's constantly spewing lies and propaganda.
Heartland funded some of his work that showed the surface station record to be unreliable
Except it didn't. It showed them to be extremely reliable, even when looking at the data set Watts the blatant liar himself chose. Watts is a liar and a paid shill, and anyone who supports his propaganda is an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even read before slamming your denialist fingers onto the keyboard to punch out irrelevant stuff I already addressed? I said that theories are not facts and do not become facts, but I said that to non-scientists, we might as well call scientific theories facts. They are not facts scientifically speaking, but in layman terms.
Do you not even know what Evolution is? Jesus... Like most climate deniers, it seems that you are a creationist!
Wow, that's a lot of useless text. I mean, you are an idiot who linked to a Wikipedia article on Global Cooling, which in the very first paragraph pointed out the following, which completely contradicts your idiotic claims:
Considering that all you are doing is to spew denialist lies I'm not going to bother with the rest of your anti-science rant.
How so?
Hello? Can you name any or not? You are still commenting away on Slashdot, so I know you're around. Stop trying to run away from the question.
Of course, you wouldn't know science if it smacked you over the head.
I don't know who these scientists were who were trying to convince people about global cooling, because even back in the 70s the consensus was that the planet was going to get warmer.
What error am I supposed to admit? Are you insane? Christ, you deniers are really something...
Oh, so you don't even know the basic scientific facts? And yet you are so convinced that your fact-ignorant opinion is correct! You don't even know what experiments and data there is! Wow, you deniers sure are ignorant.
Honest skeptics are not called deniers, because they will not deny scientific facts. Climate skeptics universally accept AGW as being correct because that's what the facts show.
Where and how did the person you replied to call actual skeptics deniers?
A climate denier is someone who denies the science and scientific facts. Simple as that. Why are you talking about atheists all of a sudden? This is about climate science.
You yourself are a true believer of science. You have no way to verify that the science behind most things you take for granted in your daily life is correct. You just assume it to be because you know from experience that science works. So you are nothing but a damn hypocrite.
There is only one side, and that side is science. And the science is clear. The warming is man-made. You may lack the understanding, but the scientists don't.
I seem to recall a NASA report that was grossly misrepresented by denialists. You may be referring to that, and that means you have been fooled by denialist lies.
You seem to be incapable of getting the actual facts behind claims made by the denialists you so blindly trust.
Another example: Your claim that the models are shit. Utter nonsense.
And another: Clouds. Once again based on denialist lies about actual research. I remember that one too.
Now: Do you also doubt that neither the scientists nor the creationists are entirely correct? That you are biologically agnostic?
So can you name any that don't? Or are you just laughing nervously because you can't?
Actually, denialist and deniers are terms used to describe people who deny scientific facts. They are descriptive and convenient terms that make it easy to convey the message that those people reject "inconvenient" facts out of hand. I never used the word "heretic."
The fact that you think past climate change is a huge surprise to anyone shows just how little you know. Maybe you should educate yourself about what scientists are actually saying before using idiotic straw man arguments like that?
Whether Mars is warming or not is irrelevant. Other planets in the solar system are not warming.
I'm not sure why you think James Lovelock is relevant. One guy without any relevant research to back up his claims is useless. You deniers hilariously cling to anyone who seems to support your religion.
The rest of the solar system is not warming.
A law does not rely on proof. A law is a description of what we see. A theory explains what we see. Two different things.
Unfortunately, the comment was not actually very insightful.
What lies? What falsified data?
Consensus reflects the collective judgment of the scientific community. So consensus actually tells us what the science is.
They already are. In actual scientific publications, where actual scientific discussions take place.
Who gives a crap about their views. It's the science that matters. And it just so happens that their published science does not match their personal views. In other words: They have failed to support their opinions with actual science.
How is Al Gore relevant? He did not invent global warming, and he most certainly didn't publish any research on it.
You pointed to a site run by notorious liar Piers Corbyn, who has one of the worst records there is when it comes to predicting the weather. He's an ignorant little cunt who's constantly spewing lies and propaganda.
Except it didn't. It showed them to be extremely reliable, even when looking at the data set Watts the blatant liar himself chose. Watts is a liar and a paid shill, and anyone who supports his propaganda is an idiot.
Who mentioned the Holocaust? "Denier" is someone who denies. It's got nothing to do with the Holocaust. Quit playing a victim, denier.
And... Al Gore? Huh? He isn't even a scientist!
It's called cherry-picking. A dishonest tactic employed by climate deniers and other anti-science loons.