Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
I thought you were going to say "Holocaust denier" for a second there ! 
Well you can mock me and call me as many names as much as you like - it shows you're losing the argument.
The fact that you have included Wikipedia in your list of hitpieces(there are many disinfo agents of the web), discredits your refutation:
Of course there are a number of truthful entries on Wiki, but unfortunately a significant number of hitpieces and editing of articles containing real information:
FBI, CIA Scriveners Edit Wikipedia Entries
Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia
Time To Fight Back Against Online Disinfo Agents and Trolls
Your articles you present are nothing more than "hitpieces" used to discredit "conspiracy theories" by internet disinformation agents.
It works along the lines of, if you can't disprove something using fact, then try to discredit it using ridicule........
As for your other point, these scientists are not misled at all - many have it in their own interests to profit from the funding they receive - we all know global warming is big big business.
Like the EU, the gravy train of global warming is too good an opportunity to miss out on !
Maybe some of them may actually believe in what they are doing, though equally there are a number of scientists who don't agree with "man made" global warming.
The IPCC report included scientists against their own wishes to gain an fake "concensus".
In short - there is no consensus, even though the mainstream media including Al Gore and co, lie and say there is.....
I don't mind if you want to respond to me or not - that's up to you...
Though most people would just not respond, not say they are not going to respond. |
You've just shown to the world that you didn't even *look* at the links he gave!
He didn't list Wikipedia. Try again.
Also, you persist in using InfoWars and PrisonPlanet, PrisonPlanet being an offshoot of InfoWars in the first place! You're essentially using one source, and one which is heavily biased towards supporting any type of conspiracy theory, never mind just ones about global warming!
Regarding consensus:
Logicalscience.com - The Consensus On Global Warming/Climate Change: From Science to Industry & Religion
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science
Quote:
Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth
I don't dispute there is global warming but we are fooled into thinking it is "man made" and caused by Co2 emmisions when CO2 is actually good, makes things grow, and is a catalyst for life on the planet.
A mathematician realizes the is importance of understanding the difference between "correlation" and "causation", something which Al Gore "conveniently" forgot to mention in his "inconvienient lie, er sorry truth"......
I want to ask those people who beleive in "man made" global warming, why are the planets of polar icecaps of Mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting ?
How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is
simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns ?
Top Global Warming Advocate: Jupiter & Saturn Closer To Sun Than Earth
SUV's On Jupiter?
If you can't answer it, then you have to accept that it is caused by something not on this earth(hmmm the sun maybe ?), and therefore THERE IS NO MAN MADE global warming !! |
Oxygen is good; it allows us to breathe. Water is good, too.
Try having too much of either at once.
Just because something is good in mild quantities it doesn't follow that one can't have too much.
I have a keen interest in mathematics and am quite competent in most areas of it (apart from trigonometry, which I detest with a passion), as you might have picked up from some posts I have made in the past.
Don't try to imply that I don't then understand the difference between correlation and causation.
Climatologists suggest that it appears to be the case that CO2 is causing warming using a combination of statistical analysis and basic physical/chemical properties of carbon dioxide and various other gases, these properties being that they absorb and re-radiate certain types of EM radiation, particularly IR.
Skeptics, on the other hand, have often claimed proof, yes, proof, that global warming is due to the Sun by producing graphs showing a correlation of temperature with solar activity.
Not only does that show that the ones with a lack of understanding of statistical concepts (such as the correlation != causation one) are more often the skeptics, but it has also been shown that no correlation at all exists beyond about 1970, and it was a weakening correlation even prior to that.
The albedo of Mars has been shown to be shrinking. As for the others, I would imagine the same sort of thing.
Oh, and it's not Solar System wide. Uranus is cooling.
If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be Solar System wide.
Also, the idea of the Sun being the cause just doesn't agree with the data. Solar activity has on average gone down over the past 30 years. Even accounting for time lag due to thermal inertia we should be seeing a cooling by now, which we haven't. Face it: the Sun is most likely not a cause, and certainly not the primary one even if it is still contributing somehow.
And, to steal one of your kind's favourite arguments, you have a closed mind. The fact that you stated,
stated with certainty and no admittance that you might be wrong, that man-made global warming does not exist proves that.
Hypocrite.
No reputable climatologist has ever stated that man-made global warming is certain or even the only cause of the recent warming.