What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Yes, I have learned from facts and data that AGW is a complete farce. Apparently you are cognitively impaired and still clinging to the global warming fantasy.

To ignore the overwhelming evidence requires incredible stupidity. You may be the stupidest person I have ever seen. But at least you are not intentionally lying like jerm is. You're just stupid.

The denial of science in general and of AGW in particular is the best single indicator of just how fucking ignorant and deluded Republicans are.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

To ignore the overwhelming evidence requires incredible stupidity. You may be the stupidest person I have ever seen. But at least you are not intentionally lying like jerm is. You're just stupid.

The denial of science in general and of AGW in particular is the best single indicator of just how fucking ignorant and deluded Republicans are.

So rather than present any realistic information to support your assertions.... all you can do is insult people.

Obviously this is a typical example of the best global warming alarmists can provide. Truly sad.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

So rather than present any realistic information to support your assertions.... all you can do is insult people.

Obviously this is a typical example of the best global warming alarmists can provide. Truly sad.

Fuck you asshole. You ignore the facts so I might as well just insult you and have some fun.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Fuck you asshole. You ignore the facts so I might as well just insult you and have some fun.

Remember that you are the individual who admitted that you do not read any of the information posted by people who do not support AGW. I actually have read the information you posted and found it to be less than convincing or factual.

For many years I have looked at global warming information in detail including the the raw data sets. As someone with a significant scientific and engineering background I have found there is no realistic evidence that supports the theory that man is responsible for global climate change.

I have no issues debating with people who disagree with me, and I am willing to evaluate what they post. Individuals like you who simple insult people who hold difference perspectives do not add value to the conversation and also display their inability to think for themselves.

So you can continue to chant your global warming 'religious' mantra because obviously all you do is recycle the same fabricated information continuously that has no factual scientific basis.

MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2davchezg

 

[fhl]

Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group
Telegraph (UK) ^ | 05 Oct 2013 | Christopher Booker
Posted on 10/6/2013 11:05:36 PM by neverdem

Last weekend, something very odd happened. On Friday we were told that in Stockholm the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) had published a report saying that it was now “extremely likely” that the world faces disastrous man-made climate change. But this was merely a “summary” for politicians and the media of a scientific report that was not published until three days later.

We then learnt that this “Summary for Policymakers” had been argued over for days and sleepless nights by hundreds of politicians, officials and scientists, but, weirdly, that the scientific report it supposedly summarised had subsequently been amended to bring it into line with the summary. One obvious change from previous drafts was the marked downplaying of any reference to how, in recent years, global temperatures have so notably failed to rise as the IPCC’s computer models predicted.

This was an uncanny replay of the first scandal to hit the IPCC back in 1996,...

--snip--

Scientists who had approved the report protested that there was nothing in their text to justify this. But, to their amazement, they discovered that their agreed version had been amended to include this very phrase, citing as its authority two papers not yet published by Ben Santer, an American scientist who had also played a key part in drafting the summary.

All this, and the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he “witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process”. Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995...

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...

from freerepublic.com/tag/globalwarming