Who told Indonesia they're a US ally? I'm quite serious here, every statement I've seen from Obama on the country where he grew up avoids that word very carefully.
Who said anything about the US surveilling Indonesia? This is about surveillance conducted by Australia.
It's not actually xenophobia when you attempt to enforce your national borders.
Our borders are't threatened.
Asylum Seekers aren't invading, they are seeking to immigrate by legal means. Our laws are not broken, there is no threat of violence nor damage to our national sovereignty. They are not claiming any of our land as their own, nor taking our women or pillaging our villagers.
Australia has a set quota of refugees that are treated as part of the annual immigration intake - 40000. Not once during this whole saga have we been forced to accept a single refugee more than that number. Not once. If 40001 refugees turn up, one refugee is settled somewhere else.
There is no threat.
My great uncle flew fighter bombers in New Guinea. He lost his life defending the country he loved - this one. It makes me desperately ashamed to think how craven we've become since those times - his generation faced down the might of the imperial Japanese military in planes made in melbourne of fabric and wood. This generation lies down on their backs and pisses on themselves like an oft beaten cur when a few thousand brown people show up in wooden fishing boats, not a gun nor bayonet amongst them.
Atheists also believe there is no God, along with several foundational beliefs (a belief system) which structure their responses in these sorts of conversations.
Their default state of belief for the infinity of possible assertions that are unsupported by sound evidence is "lack", not "faith".
Here's an assertion: My son has a blue shirt.
In practice, much like everybody else, Atheists assume that the value of any random assertion is unknown. To do otherwise would be irrational because every assertion can be trivially reversed.i.e. "There is no God" fits your qualification as something that atheists would claim as not true.
. Since they would consider the word "agnostic" to mean "lacking knowledge of" (because that's what it means, and their not idiots or ignorant) they could probably care less if you called them "agnostic about God", except for the weak connotation of agnostic that suggests that the proposition involved is somehow reasonable.
Atheists are not agnostics, this is logically incorrect and also quite offensive to actual agnostics, who can see the difference between agnosticism and atheism. To illustrate this difference consider the counterposed assertions A "my son has a blue shirt" , B "my son does not have a blue shirt" and then consider 3 people chosen at random: Person (Th) surmises that A is correct, B is incorrect, Person (At) assumes the A is incorrect, B is correct, person (Ag) has no opinion.
P(Th)=A+'B
P(At)='A+B
P(Ag)='A+'B
Persons Th and At have both made statements based on belief. Person Ag has not, and in the absence of evidence has taken the rational approach, which is to recognise that what is unknown is unknown.
Note that this illustration works as well if you based it on a single assertion. In essence, assertions are worded arbitrarily. Therefore arbitrarily assigning a value to assertions before knowing the assertion is irrational. Absent evidence, assuming that my son does not have a blue shirts is equally as irrational as assuming that he does.
An atheist might well not consider themselves to be an agnostic because they think that at the very least, most descriptions of God are horribly inconsistent, often logically contradictory, sometimes ethically contradictory, and arguments about evidence concerning God are an excellent opportunity to play "Logical Fallacy Bingo".
Here, you are doing exactly what every believer does - which is to arbitrarily group everybody else together.
"My beliefs are internally consistent: [arbitrary grouping of other beliefs] is not consistent => how could anyone believe that nonsense?!?"
Following your example a Christian could look at the contradictions between atheism and buddhism, and declare them false. This is not evidence.
You'll note that the phrase "Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data" implies an increase in overall volume of ice which is the take away - you are supposed to assume she is talking about volume. But she isn't:
DumbScientist below helpfully points out that Zwally is using Total Mass Balance, which is different to Surface Mass Balance. The SMB figure involves "precipitation, evaporation and snowdrift physics" but not glacier run-off. Thanks to both readers.
Neatly tucked away there is the truth, the article in question is not referring to glacial ice volumes but to snow build up due to increased precipitation, and ignores the overall loss of volume due to glacial run off. But you can see how she has structured that, so carefully, to suggest something completely different in the headline but at the detail level, to admit that the paper in question has nothing to do with ice volume ("total mass").
What a spectacular lie!
Almost as good as the lie she told a few weeks ago, you remember the one, about how she had seen a draft of the IPCC report containing a halving of CO2 sensitivity and then later she said they must have taken it out in the final version? There was no such draft, and she never saw a draft, why would she? She lied.
Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source.
We can, and will, use whatever source we choose. It's up to you to prove that Skeptical Science is factually incorrect. Start with Tyndall, then Arrhenius and work forward.
Your methodology is flawed - the flaw is to assume (a) that scientists ought to customise proofs to satisfy your concerns, (b) that your dispute of a scientific finding automatically means that said finding is under a cloud.
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation or can explain, with working, why global warming would not cause the ice sheets to be undercut by streams and destabilise, you simply don't have a voice. You only get a seat at the table if you have actual science to bargain with. Otherwise I'm afraid you are simply yelling into the wind.
Actually what it exposes is that there is no alternative hypothesis. The climate misinformers have championed several alternative hypotheses, all of which have been cut down:
It's not warming
It's warming, but due to the Milankovitch cycle
It's warming, but it's the sun at a maxima
It's warming but due to causes unknown - What? No, figuring it out is someone elses job!
OK, we are making it warm, but only a little bit
OK, we are making it warm, but it will be good for the environment! We promise! We are definitely right this time, I swear!
And so on.
It's true that science is always up for revision. But you can only revise science with better science.
Any time "experts" flawlessly explain occurances after the fact, even when it contradicts their predictions, it makes me believe they have no idea what they are talking about.
So let me get this straight: In you mind, the offering of a science based explanation for some phenomena is reason to distrust science, because the phenomena was observed before the explanation is offered? That the very explanatory power of science is the reason to distrust it?
I note that the industry funded denial PR campaign, in contrast, does not offer explanations for any phenomena, nor, when it's predictions are contradicted by observation, does it seek to explain this discrepancy, or retract it's statements: e.g:
"It's not getting warmer" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's the sun" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's cosmic rays/gravitational lensing" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's too complicated" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's natural but there's no way to explain it using science (i.e it's magic)" contradicted 150 years ago, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
I'm guessing you would have us believe them on the basis that they have no explanatory power?
I will believe these pig fuckers when they can accurately predict what will happen next year. Otherwise, why would I believe what they say will happen 10 years from now.
Your error is that you assume that it matters what you believe.
What kind of person points out failed predictions?
Perhaps you are not asking yourself the right question.
The oft stated prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature wouldn't rise has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.
The follow on prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature rise, though unusual, was cyclical and due to something natural, e.g. increased solar output has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.
So the question you should be asking yourself is, what kind of person continuously believes a body of work and people whose only achievement so far is being consistently wrong?
The change appears to be that after some analysis, they've determine the stability of the next equilibrium to be below 6 degrees. This means that there is low risk of the temperature increasing beyond 6 degrees. There was always an equilibrium, and six degrees or anything like six degree is well into the dangerous range, so the authors conclusion it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet seems to be dangling in the wind. How did he draw that conclusion?
A quick check of the authors credentials indicates he wrote a book some years ago expounding the view that climate change will be beneficial for humanity. The WSJ article is the author promoting his own ideas under the guise of interpreting the results of the next IPCC report for us (rather than letting us interpret the results for ourselves).
Are you unable to discern when computer games have become reality?
Here's some helpful signs for our boys in blue:
Scenario 1: It's quite dark, there are men wearing suits with bright flouro stripes. Jeff Bridges is there. COMPUTER GAME HAS BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 2: You like to play starfighter. You have just beaten the high score, and a man in a hat is inviting you to go for a ride in his car that can fly. YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 3: You are hacked into a computer. Is it calling itself joshua? Is it seemingly reluctant to play Thermonuclear War? YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 4: Your life doesn't resemble Scenarios 1 - 3? You life is not a computer game.
The OP is drawing attention to the dangers of hating on whole populations people because of some real or imagined difference between those groups and yourself, when in fact the situation is almost always more nuanced and if everybody, including atheists, came to a point of acceptance that other people believe things that contradict their own beliefs and that's just the way it is, then the problems that underpin many conflicts will be shaken. Dehumanisation is the enemy, not humans. Religious hatred is religious hatred, even if you genuinely have no belief (agnostics) or genuinely believe you don't (atheists).
In the case of Israel, for instance, some followers of judaism support Israel - some do not. Likewise, some jews who do not follow judaism support Isreal, some do not.
Likewise - some Christians support Israel, some do not. And some Muslim hate Israel, some couldn't care less - Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims being the most obvious example.
As the OP points out above, the euphemistic term 'neutralisation' is really just another PR attempt by the fossil industry funded denialist machine to make acidification seem like it isn't an issue. The issue is the effect of acidification on marine organisms, which obviously don't care that the pH drop might bottom out at neutral. And neither to the things that eat them. When you are hungry the distinction seems unimportant.
Or it could be, that, like an amateur, you are confusing the pH resistance of fresh water fish versus the resistance of salt water dwelling marine life in general, including invertrbates, crustaceans and the like. Probably worth you pondering where you went wrong before posting on the subject again.
Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case.
Since science is not the converse of religion there is no reason to equate thinking about religion to be the converse of thinking about science.
No it doesn't. Your feelings don't enter into it. What matters is what you, having made the aforementioned claims, are required to do to substantiate these claims. Were you to claim that fairies inhabit your garden, the burden of proof with respect to those claims falls on you, the claimant.
lol dream on bro.
Ah. So:
(a) You can't substantiate your claims
(b) You can't substantiate your reasons for not substantiating your claims.
we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism.
[The scientific community can] assume what [they] want, I don't care.
Well, if that is your sincere opinion, I'll happily quote you on that later on.
This begs the question of whether I'd care to justify them to you
No it doesn't. Your feelings don't enter into it. What matters is what you, having made the aforementioned claims, are required to do to substantiate these claims. Were you to claim that fairies inhabit your garden, the burden of proof with respect to those claims falls on you, the claimant.
If you can't - or won't - justify your positions with detail, we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism. You'll find that science has an uncommon grip on the western mind. We enjoy it's benefits, and are unlikely to give up those benefits for the (as yet unstated) benefits of wishing on fairies. Therefore, you'll have a job convincing us. You have it all before you. So get to it.
Go do your own research, I have no need to educate you.
Your assumption about who is educating who is incorrect.
Except Muslims don't believe in invisible sky fairies - and if you approximated sufficiently for that description to cover Islam it would also cover just about everyone else, including yourself, likely as not.
Describe a reason I should answer your questions at all.
I would have thought that self evident. You made the aforementioned claims. Now, we test them for veracity. If you can't justify your positions with detail, we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism. You'll find that science has an uncommon grip on the western mind. We enjoy it's benefits, and are unlikely to give up those benefits for the (as yet unstated) benefits of wishing on fairies. Therefore, you'll have a job convincing us. You have it all before you. So get to it.
I don't expect you to respect my judgement of you at all. However, in addition to the aforementioned, you are also not very interesting at conversation. You talk a lot though.
Whereas with you, it's the things you haven't said which are the most significant:
1. Given the opportunity, you could not describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed.
Anything else you'd like to retract whilst we are at it?
And you haven't shown you understand AGW, science or how to have a discussion. Are you in college still? Also, you seem kind of dumb.
You do seem confused about the subject at hand. If you are looking for a mutual self introspection session, I'd suggest proposing that with someone else, at a different time.
In the meantime, please turn your attention to the lesson at hand. Don't whine, don't behave like a fat kid who pretends to forget his PE gear "can't do it sir, forgot m'shorts" I've heard them all.
1. Describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists or admit there is no reason to give them credence
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.Describe this mechanism in detail, and show working
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed. Cite the relevant material and explain this discrepancy
Slashdot Mirror
Who told Indonesia they're a US ally? I'm quite serious here, every statement I've seen from Obama on the country where he grew up avoids that word very carefully.
Who said anything about the US surveilling Indonesia? This is about surveillance conducted by Australia.
- So in fact, it is not illegal, according to International and Australian law. Thanks for confirming that.
It's not actually xenophobia when you attempt to enforce your national borders.
Our borders are't threatened.
Asylum Seekers aren't invading, they are seeking to immigrate by legal means. Our laws are not broken, there is no threat of violence nor damage to our national sovereignty. They are not claiming any of our land as their own, nor taking our women or pillaging our villagers.
Australia has a set quota of refugees that are treated as part of the annual immigration intake - 40000. Not once during this whole saga have we been forced to accept a single refugee more than that number. Not once. If 40001 refugees turn up, one refugee is settled somewhere else. There is no threat.
My great uncle flew fighter bombers in New Guinea. He lost his life defending the country he loved - this one. It makes me desperately ashamed to think how craven we've become since those times - his generation faced down the might of the imperial Japanese military in planes made in melbourne of fabric and wood. This generation lies down on their backs and pisses on themselves like an oft beaten cur when a few thousand brown people show up in wooden fishing boats, not a gun nor bayonet amongst them.
For pitys sake - have a bit of courage.
No, Atheists do not believe that there is a God.
That's correct, but incomplete.
Atheists also believe there is no God, along with several foundational beliefs (a belief system) which structure their responses in these sorts of conversations.
Their default state of belief for the infinity of possible assertions that are unsupported by sound evidence is "lack", not "faith".
Here's an assertion: My son has a blue shirt.
In practice, much like everybody else, Atheists assume that the value of any random assertion is unknown. To do otherwise would be irrational because every assertion can be trivially reversed .i.e. "There is no God" fits your qualification as something that atheists would claim as not true.
. Since they would consider the word "agnostic" to mean "lacking knowledge of" (because that's what it means, and their not idiots or ignorant) they could probably care less if you called them "agnostic about God", except for the weak connotation of agnostic that suggests that the proposition involved is somehow reasonable.
Atheists are not agnostics, this is logically incorrect and also quite offensive to actual agnostics, who can see the difference between agnosticism and atheism. To illustrate this difference consider the counterposed assertions A "my son has a blue shirt" , B "my son does not have a blue shirt" and then consider 3 people chosen at random: Person (Th) surmises that A is correct, B is incorrect, Person (At) assumes the A is incorrect, B is correct, person (Ag) has no opinion.
P(Th)=A+'B
P(At)='A+B
P(Ag)='A+'B
Persons Th and At have both made statements based on belief. Person Ag has not, and in the absence of evidence has taken the rational approach, which is to recognise that what is unknown is unknown.
Note that this illustration works as well if you based it on a single assertion. In essence, assertions are worded arbitrarily. Therefore arbitrarily assigning a value to assertions before knowing the assertion is irrational. Absent evidence, assuming that my son does not have a blue shirts is equally as irrational as assuming that he does.
An atheist might well not consider themselves to be an agnostic because they think that at the very least, most descriptions of God are horribly inconsistent, often logically contradictory, sometimes ethically contradictory, and arguments about evidence concerning God are an excellent opportunity to play "Logical Fallacy Bingo".
Here, you are doing exactly what every believer does - which is to arbitrarily group everybody else together. "My beliefs are internally consistent: [arbitrary grouping of other beliefs] is not consistent => how could anyone believe that nonsense?!?"
Following your example a Christian could look at the contradictions between atheism and buddhism, and declare them false. This is not evidence.
You'll note that the phrase "Antarctica gaining Ice Mass (balance*) — and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data" implies an increase in overall volume of ice which is the take away - you are supposed to assume she is talking about volume. But she isn't:
DumbScientist below helpfully points out that Zwally is using Total Mass Balance, which is different to Surface Mass Balance. The SMB figure involves "precipitation, evaporation and snowdrift physics" but not glacier run-off. Thanks to both readers.
Neatly tucked away there is the truth, the article in question is not referring to glacial ice volumes but to snow build up due to increased precipitation, and ignores the overall loss of volume due to glacial run off. But you can see how she has structured that, so carefully, to suggest something completely different in the headline but at the detail level, to admit that the paper in question has nothing to do with ice volume ("total mass").
What a spectacular lie! Almost as good as the lie she told a few weeks ago, you remember the one, about how she had seen a draft of the IPCC report containing a halving of CO2 sensitivity and then later she said they must have taken it out in the final version? There was no such draft, and she never saw a draft, why would she? She lied.
Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source.
We can, and will, use whatever source we choose. It's up to you to prove that Skeptical Science is factually incorrect. Start with Tyndall, then Arrhenius and work forward.
Unless you have a plausible alternative explanation or can explain, with working, why global warming would not cause the ice sheets to be undercut by streams and destabilise, you simply don't have a voice. You only get a seat at the table if you have actual science to bargain with. Otherwise I'm afraid you are simply yelling into the wind.
Don't we have enough of confirmation bias already?
In slashdot? oh yes.
It's not warming
It's warming, but due to the Milankovitch cycle
It's warming, but it's the sun at a maxima
It's warming but due to causes unknown - What? No, figuring it out is someone elses job!
OK, we are making it warm, but only a little bit
OK, we are making it warm, but it will be good for the environment! We promise! We are definitely right this time, I swear!
And so on.
It's true that science is always up for revision. But you can only revise science with better science.
Replying to remove bad mod
Any time "experts" flawlessly explain occurances after the fact, even when it contradicts their predictions, it makes me believe they have no idea what they are talking about.
So let me get this straight: In you mind, the offering of a science based explanation for some phenomena is reason to distrust science, because the phenomena was observed before the explanation is offered? That the very explanatory power of science is the reason to distrust it?
I note that the industry funded denial PR campaign, in contrast, does not offer explanations for any phenomena, nor, when it's predictions are contradicted by observation, does it seek to explain this discrepancy, or retract it's statements: e.g:
"It's not getting warmer" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's the sun" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's cosmic rays/gravitational lensing" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's too complicated" contradicted by observation, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
"It's natural but there's no way to explain it using science (i.e it's magic)" contradicted 150 years ago, discrepancy not explained and statements not retracted.
I'm guessing you would have us believe them on the basis that they have no explanatory power?
I will believe these pig fuckers when they can accurately predict what will happen next year. Otherwise, why would I believe what they say will happen 10 years from now.
Your error is that you assume that it matters what you believe.
The oceans weigh 280 times as much as the atmosphere, so it's nice to see it start to be included in the climate models.
Did you post this in 1990 and it took until now to get published?
Oceans are included in GCM models. They have been for some time now.
What kind of person points out failed predictions?
Perhaps you are not asking yourself the right question.
The oft stated prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature wouldn't rise has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.
The follow on prediction from the industry funded denialist machinery that the temperature rise, though unusual, was cyclical and due to something natural, e.g. increased solar output has been proven, demonstrably and unequivocally, false.
So the question you should be asking yourself is, what kind of person continuously believes a body of work and people whose only achievement so far is being consistently wrong?
A quick check of the authors credentials indicates he wrote a book some years ago expounding the view that climate change will be beneficial for humanity. The WSJ article is the author promoting his own ideas under the guise of interpreting the results of the next IPCC report for us (rather than letting us interpret the results for ourselves).
Are you unable to discern when computer games have become reality?
Here's some helpful signs for our boys in blue:
Scenario 1: It's quite dark, there are men wearing suits with bright flouro stripes. Jeff Bridges is there. COMPUTER GAME HAS BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 2: You like to play starfighter. You have just beaten the high score, and a man in a hat is inviting you to go for a ride in his car that can fly. YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 3: You are hacked into a computer. Is it calling itself joshua? Is it seemingly reluctant to play Thermonuclear War? YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.
Scenario 4: Your life doesn't resemble Scenarios 1 - 3? You life is not a computer game.
Sorry.
Play Again (Y/N)?
In the case of Israel, for instance, some followers of judaism support Israel - some do not. Likewise, some jews who do not follow judaism support Isreal, some do not.
Likewise - some Christians support Israel, some do not. And some Muslim hate Israel, some couldn't care less - Malaysian and Indonesian Muslims being the most obvious example.
How was your holiday?
As the OP points out above, the euphemistic term 'neutralisation' is really just another PR attempt by the fossil industry funded denialist machine to make acidification seem like it isn't an issue. The issue is the effect of acidification on marine organisms, which obviously don't care that the pH drop might bottom out at neutral. And neither to the things that eat them. When you are hungry the distinction seems unimportant.
Or it could be, that, like an amateur, you are confusing the pH resistance of fresh water fish versus the resistance of salt water dwelling marine life in general, including invertrbates, crustaceans and the like. Probably worth you pondering where you went wrong before posting on the subject again.
Yes, filthy science, how dare it describe facts to us! Better to live on in ignorant bliss.
Conversely, one would think that thinking about religion and faith would trigger moral behavior, but, sadly, I haven't found that to (generally) be the case.
Since science is not the converse of religion there is no reason to equate thinking about religion to be the converse of thinking about science.
No it doesn't. Your feelings don't enter into it. What matters is what you, having made the aforementioned claims, are required to do to substantiate these claims. Were you to claim that fairies inhabit your garden, the burden of proof with respect to those claims falls on you, the claimant.
lol dream on bro.
Ah. So:
(a) You can't substantiate your claims
(b) You can't substantiate your reasons for not substantiating your claims.
we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism.
[The scientific community can] assume what [they] want, I don't care.
Well, if that is your sincere opinion, I'll happily quote you on that later on.
This begs the question of whether I'd care to justify them to you
No it doesn't. Your feelings don't enter into it. What matters is what you, having made the aforementioned claims, are required to do to substantiate these claims. Were you to claim that fairies inhabit your garden, the burden of proof with respect to those claims falls on you, the claimant.
If you can't - or won't - justify your positions with detail, we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism. You'll find that science has an uncommon grip on the western mind. We enjoy it's benefits, and are unlikely to give up those benefits for the (as yet unstated) benefits of wishing on fairies. Therefore, you'll have a job convincing us. You have it all before you. So get to it.
Go do your own research, I have no need to educate you.
Your assumption about who is educating who is incorrect.
Except Muslims don't believe in invisible sky fairies - and if you approximated sufficiently for that description to cover Islam it would also cover just about everyone else, including yourself, likely as not.
Describe a reason I should answer your questions at all.
I would have thought that self evident. You made the aforementioned claims. Now, we test them for veracity. If you can't justify your positions with detail, we'd have to assume that you were lying, or a fool. Neither conclusion really helps you to achieve your aim of convincing the world that science is bunk and that the scientific method is a time travelling conspiracy undertaken by wizards, and we should throw out science and replace it with the fairy wishing of denialism. You'll find that science has an uncommon grip on the western mind. We enjoy it's benefits, and are unlikely to give up those benefits for the (as yet unstated) benefits of wishing on fairies. Therefore, you'll have a job convincing us. You have it all before you. So get to it.
I don't expect you to respect my judgement of you at all. However, in addition to the aforementioned, you are also not very interesting at conversation. You talk a lot though.
Whereas with you, it's the things you haven't said which are the most significant:
1. Given the opportunity, you could not describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed.
Anything else you'd like to retract whilst we are at it?
And you haven't shown you understand AGW, science or how to have a discussion. Are you in college still? Also, you seem kind of dumb.
You do seem confused about the subject at hand. If you are looking for a mutual self introspection session, I'd suggest proposing that with someone else, at a different time.
In the meantime, please turn your attention to the lesson at hand. Don't whine, don't behave like a fat kid who pretends to forget his PE gear "can't do it sir, forgot m'shorts" I've heard them all.
1. Describe a reason why we should give credence to the claims of climate denialists or admit there is no reason to give them credence
2. You asserted that correlation with the predictions of black radiation calculations was a measure of the accuracy of GCM calculations but you are unable to explain why this would be.Describe this mechanism in detail, and show working
3. You claimed that GCM models indicate a probable rise (P > 0.95) of between 1 and 7 degrees, but you can't actually justify these figures against what is actually observed. Cite the relevant material and explain this discrepancy