Changing the subject again, moron? As you usually do when you have no real response to the thorough debunking of some idiotic thing you just said. We were talking about your amazingly retarded claim that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change is "anti scientific thought" and "pseudo science on a grand scale" - which I debunked by pointing out that there is an easily verified worldwide scientific consensus supporting AGW. You can't dispute that so you're trying to pretend that the issue is whether citing the scientific consensus violates a rule of formal debate, which is an irrelevant non-issue to begin with. You just demonstrate the absurdity of your position when you try to pretend that the world scientific community is "anti-science" while apparently imagining that it is you poor, ignorant, deluded stooges for the fossil fuel industry who are really the ones doing the actual science (in your mother's basement, I guess) and proving it to the world by posting your 'scathing critiques' of the world's actual working climate scientists and their research, on random internet political forums rather than publishing your work in Nature or Science or the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology or the Journal of Climate, to name a few out of the many in the climate science fields. LOLOLOLOL....your delusions just get funnier and funnier, walleyed.
And once again, you poor deluded fool, the 'scientific consensus' reflects the reality of the results of decades of concentrated research that has been done by tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of countries all around the world. The consensus is not in itself an argument that is used in scientifically demonstrating the validity of the conclusions of the climate scientists. That is done with the mountains of actual evidence in many areas of study. The consensus reflects the fact that scientific papers about the research done on the evidence overwhelmingly support AGW and no one has been able to find any natural mechanisms that could explain the evidence if you leave off CO2 forcing. As I pointed out above, the scientific consensus (on any topic), even when it reflects a much lower level of unanimity than is the case with AGW, is a useful tool in making public policy and is regarded as such by intelligent people generally including most world leaders in government and business.
As far as your delusions about climate models....
YouTube - This Year's Model
***
Yeah? So? Until they deal with the temperature manipulation issues (remember NIWA in New Zealand? Your alarmists got caught falsifying the temp record there and got slammed for it) and the complete corruption of the peer review process in the field of climatology their opinions mean nothing to legitimate scientists. Five years from now you will see the complete collapse of this horse manure and I will be laughing at you.
They are allready on the way down, they are treading water as it is.
You are soooo delusional, walleyed. The only "issues" are phantom artifacts of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign and exist only in the heads of denier cult freaks like you. In the real world, there is no serious scientific challenge to AGW and all of the indicators (like rising temperatures, melting glaciers and icecaps, changing seasonal timing, etc. etc.) and other evidence (like paleoclimate data and studies) continue to point to abrupt global warming beyond the range of natural variability that is being induced by human carbon emissions and deforestation practices.
Five years from now, new world temperature records will have been set, climate pattern disruptions and wacky extreme weather events will have increased and the intelligent people of the world will be doing what they're doing even now and laughing at you anti-science, warmed-over 'flat-earthers' for your near-psychotic denial of reality.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....very funny coming from someone like you, walleyedretard, who wouldn't know the 'scientific method' if it bit you.Wrong again bozo. I never dis good scientists. I only dis scientists who fail to follow the scientific method.
Sure thing ol trolling blunder fraud. Keep on glad handing yourself. You should get an alumni meeting of the American Institute of Physics together, you would have yourself of course, konrad, ol fraud, a few other sock puppets that were around for one or two posts, Chris, and K2skier. You two or three real people could have a grand old party slapping each other on the back.