Global Warming is over.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I agree there is warming(it's proven in the data), but I do not feel 100% convinced it is caused by the actions of humanity. Am I 50/50, maybe, but I won't say I know it's caused by humans, nor will I support legislation designed to utilize an unproven fact to control the socio-financial system until there is a 100% proof that our actions are "causing" it.

[gwb72tii]

Checked this post again to see what nonsense GWB has posted now. wasn't disappointed.

wow, a drive by blogger
look at my new sig nando

[nando]

Sorry, I have sigs turned off.

[nando]

I agree there is warming(it's proven in the data), but I do not feel 100% convinced it is caused by the actions of humanity. Am I 50/50, maybe, but I won't say I know it's caused by humans, nor will I support legislation designed to utilize an unproven fact to control the socio-financial system until there is a 100% proof that our actions are "causing" it.

I was right there with you about a year, year and a half ago.

[gwb72tii]

so what changed nando? met rwh?

[herbivor]

I was right there with you about a year, year and a half ago.

Yeah, most of us are skeptics when we don't understand something (except religious :loco:). But the more you learn, educate yourself, and understand the overwhelming evidence, the easier it is to accept the theory. Same with Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

At this point, I think gwb has to be messing with us for fun as part of some elaborate prank. Because no one can be that stupid to ignore all of the facts that were provided in this thread and still hold the exact same viewpoints as if he hadn't read a single one. Ignorance is forgivable, but intentional ignorance is a psychological problem.:loco:

[nando]

Yeah, most of us are skeptics when we don't understand something (except religious :loco:). But the more you learn, educate yourself, and understand the overwhelming evidence, the easier it is to accept the theory. Same with Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

At this point, I think gwb has to be messing with us for fun as part of some elaborate prank. Because no one can be that stupid to ignore all of the facts that were provided in this thread and still hold the exact same viewpoints as if he hadn't read a single one. Ignorance is forgivable, but intentional ignorance is a psychological problem.:loco:

I always knew but didn't want to believe it. Hey, I'm a car enthusiast, after all. I drive a car that gets under 20mpg and eats tires for breakfast. It's like being a Vampire that gets queasy when it sees blood.

But, at least it's not a Prius. :p

[Victell]

been pretty fucking cold where I'm at, must be global warming

[gwb72tii]

Yeah, most of us are skeptics when we don't understand something (except religious :loco:). But the more you learn, educate yourself, and understand the overwhelming evidence, the easier it is to accept the theory. Same with Evolution, or any other scientific theory.

At this point, I think gwb has to be messing with us for fun as part of some elaborate prank. Because no one can be that stupid to ignore all of the facts that were provided in this thread and still hold the exact same viewpoints as if he hadn't read a single one. Ignorance is forgivable, but intentional ignorance is a psychological problem.:loco:

not all all herbal, i'm not ignorant of your side's data/arguments/theories and hypotheses. the subject interests me so i read as much as i can, from all angles. am i a skeptic? sure. has man had an influence on climate? yes. is man solely responsible for warming? from what i read, uncertain but probably not.

yet it seems from your (and others) arguments here that any rebuttal to any weakness in your side's points of view/contentions is unjustified, that there can be no disagreement inspite of the physical evidence, or lack thereof.

that is what has always puzzled me about you and rwh and your many twins, the inability to have any doubt whatsoever in AGW, hence AGW being called the new religion. that the corruption of the scientific method by some on your side is dismissed as propaganda by exxon. that when a man like steve mcintyre thoroughly dissects and proves fraudulent mann's hockey stick hypothesis, well, you cannot trust him because he's outside the climate science field. but it's perfectly reasonable to have a train engineer head the IPCC.
and even when presenting your own data back to you (IPCC/HadCRUT) that shows no warming for an extended time frame, completely contrary to IPCC model predictions, even your own data is dismissed.

and somehow being a skeptic is unreasonable. LOL

[nando]

george, you simultaneously claim the planet isn't warming while also saying that you believe it is. so which is it? this isn't the first time that question has arised. I won't expect an answer this time, either.

[gwb72tii]

i never said the planet is not warming

here, i'll expand for you

i've said there is a current pause in warming (dismissed by others but shown in phyiscal dada), that there is certainly a long term warming trend, that man has had an influence but is not solely responsible, that pollution is bad etc

and if you saw the link fron farbin, you probably saw this one also
in all seriousness, maybe Q5, our resdent scholar, may want to opine on it as well

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/28/coralline-algae-and-the-case-for-natural-climate-change/

[gwb72tii]

and this just in

fron someone who truly believes in AGW

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/01/Ridley-Ten-Tests.pdf

[nando]

ah, more conspiracy blog sites, or a retired journalist funded by the coal industry..

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

when you are capable of finding a real scientific source, let us know. I won't hold my breath.

[rwh11385]

wow, what a biased view
the data is from the source for the IPCC alarmism and your faith in AGW

so what is it rwh, you're saying you can't trust the data, the same data you use to argue AGW is real?

you cannot make this stuff up. LOL

No, it's not a question of the data but moronic analysis of it.

You wouldn't understand, you don't nor have ever dealt with data and only base your opinions on someone elses biased viewpoint, on blind faith.

[rwh11385]

has man had an influence on climate? yes.

What I don't get is you post stupid denialism links and fight tooth and nail but agree with the conclusion that you rally against.

Are you that dumb? Or just a giant troll?