Turns out that even the skeptics agree, the earth is warming abnormally

[Vast LWC]

You post these things yet you have not offered a single fact or link or a shred of evidence.
Earlier ,I asked you what your solution to the problem might be. Dozens of posts later, you have not bothered to answer.
Until you show some balls and come up with something positive, you are simply crying foul and that's about it.
Now, let's remember no proof has been offered indicating the rise in the Earth's average temperature in the last 100 years is man caused.

Soon after you asked that, one of the other posters linked and quoted a giant load of data/evidence backing man-made Global warming.

Even so, this entire time, I have been saying that there is not 100% proof that Global Warming is man-made.

So, what the hell am I "crying foul" about?

My point was that there are a bunch of crazy jackasses on this thread that think that the entire world scientific community is involved in some giant conspiracy to somehow promote some sort of socialist agenda through global warming.

How can you just say all the evidence presented in the attempt to make the case for Global Warming is completely invalid, because it hasn't been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt...

....and then just turn around and say that there's some sort of "vast global conspiracy", based on no evidence at all?

You would literally have to be insane to follow that course of logic.

And, as for evidence that's been presented to support the man-made theory, I refer you to this page, which has a whole load of information bunched together in an easily readable format:

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

 

[Vast LWC]

Here's how that line of thought works:

1. I don't like this idea, and I'm going to find facts to contradict it.
2. Though most of the facts support the idea that I don't like, I choose to say that I am positive the idea in question is false, because there is some doubt..
3. Because the idea is false, there must be some motive for promoting the false idea.
4. I'm going to go ahead and say that the idea I don't like is associated with another idea I don't like, and people I hate, to make myself feel better about possibly being wrong in my assessment.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Could the warming be caused by all the hot air coming out of the looney left?

 

[Vast LWC]

Could the warming be caused by all the hot air coming out of the looney left?

Perhaps, though I prefer to think Rush Limbaugh is the main source of said emissions.

 

[paulitician]

Could the warming be caused by all the hot air coming out of the looney left?

Bingo!

 

[thereisnospoon]

You post these things yet you have not offered a single fact or link or a shred of evidence.
Earlier ,I asked you what your solution to the problem might be. Dozens of posts later, you have not bothered to answer.
Until you show some balls and come up with something positive, you are simply crying foul and that's about it.
Now, let's remember no proof has been offered indicating the rise in the Earth's average temperature in the last 100 years is man caused.

Soon after you asked that, one of the other posters linked and quoted a giant load of data/evidence backing man-made Global warming.

Even so, this entire time, I have been saying that there is not 100% proof that Global Warming is man-made.

So, what the hell am I "crying foul" about?

My point was that there are a bunch of crazy jackasses on this thread that think that the entire world scientific community is involved in some giant conspiracy to somehow promote some sort of socialist agenda through global warming.

How can you just say all the evidence presented in the attempt to make the case for Global Warming is completely invalid, because it hasn't been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt...

....and then just turn around and say that there's some sort of "vast global conspiracy", based on no evidence at all?

You would literally have to be insane to follow that course of logic.

And, as for evidence that's been presented to support the man-made theory, I refer you to this page, which has a whole load of information bunched together in an easily readable format:

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

What giant load? All I saw was a chart which indicated an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The chart did not offer any other information. Info such as, where measurements were taken. The number of locations. Over how many years the data was collected. The absence of these important factors indicates a lack of real research or simply a bias.
Try again..BTW I asked YOU for an answer. A solution.
One hole in your line of comment is use of the word "theory". Just because a theory has been presented, does not make it fact.
Again, thus far the only conclusive study done on climate change was the most recent NASA study. NASA has no dog in the fight and thus their results can not be questioned by either side of the debate.
As far as your side is concerned, everyone is just supposed to accept the global warming crowd's theory and shut up about it.
It is obvious that the global warming crowd has a political agenda. The UN is in on the agenda as well.
The agenda is to create a new tax. A carbon tax. This is a very dangerous and vague method to extract additional cash from business and consumers. Such a tax will do nothing to curb the very thing the global warming crowd is screaming about.
However such confiscation will result in massive increases in energy costs, stifle business activity and cost countless numbers of jobs. The one country to bear the brunt of this scheme would be the USA.
China and India, the filthiest nations on the planet will tell the UN to take their tax and cram it.
So where are you going with your carbon tax rant?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Could the warming be caused by all the hot air coming out of the looney left?

Where has AlGore been lately? Haven't heard a word out him in years.
I figured he would take one look at the so far mild winter here in the lower 48 and run with it.
I guess he's heard "shut the fuck up, you tree hugger" one too many times.

 

[Vast LWC]

What giant load? All I saw was a chart which indicated an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The chart did not offer any other information. Info such as, where measurements were taken. The number of locations. Over how many years the data was collected. The absence of these important factors indicates a lack of real research or simply a bias.
Try again..BTW I asked YOU for an answer. A solution.
One hole in your line of comment is use of the word "theory". Just because a theory has been presented, does not make it fact.
Again, thus far the only conclusive study done on climate change was the most recent NASA study. NASA has no dog in the fight and thus their results can not be questioned by either side of the debate.
As far as your side is concerned, everyone is just supposed to accept the global warming crowd's theory and shut up about it.
It is obvious that the global warming crowd has a political agenda. The UN is in on the agenda as well.
The agenda is to create a new tax. A carbon tax. This is a very dangerous and vague method to extract additional cash from business and consumers. Such a tax will do nothing to curb the very thing the global warming crowd is screaming about.
However such confiscation will result in massive increases in energy costs, stifle business activity and cost countless numbers of jobs. The one country to bear the brunt of this scheme would be the USA.
China and India, the filthiest nations on the planet will tell the UN to take their tax and cram it.
So where are you going with your carbon tax rant?

OK:

1. I did not claim, at any point, that "Just because a theory has been presented, that it is fact". I in fact very specifically said that there is some doubt as to whether the man-made theory is true. Like a dozen times in this thread, in fact.

2. There have been many studies done that do in fact prove that the earth is in fact warming. In fact, I started this thread with an example of one in the OP. So I hope that's not what you're referring to with your "the only conclusive study done" line.

and

3. The chart in the link I posted is made up of hundreds of links to explanations of the points made in it. It pretty much contains a summary of every argument for warming being man-made. Click on the links. I'm not saying that is specifically what I believe, you just asked for supporting arguments, and I just provided you with a shit-load of them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thus far no conclusive proof that Global Warming is not real.

Thus far, no conclusive proof that God is not real.

God is real, but how does that support your argument?

Oh, wait, you gave no argument.

My bad.

Better get your ass to church...If you're wrong, you'll burn in Hell.

Says who?

You speak for God now too?

 

[Oddball]

Google "Pascal's wager", fool.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What giant load? All I saw was a chart which indicated an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The chart did not offer any other information. Info such as, where measurements were taken. The number of locations. Over how many years the data was collected. The absence of these important factors indicates a lack of real research or simply a bias.
Try again..BTW I asked YOU for an answer. A solution.
One hole in your line of comment is use of the word "theory". Just because a theory has been presented, does not make it fact.
Again, thus far the only conclusive study done on climate change was the most recent NASA study. NASA has no dog in the fight and thus their results can not be questioned by either side of the debate.
As far as your side is concerned, everyone is just supposed to accept the global warming crowd's theory and shut up about it.
It is obvious that the global warming crowd has a political agenda. The UN is in on the agenda as well.
The agenda is to create a new tax. A carbon tax. This is a very dangerous and vague method to extract additional cash from business and consumers. Such a tax will do nothing to curb the very thing the global warming crowd is screaming about.
However such confiscation will result in massive increases in energy costs, stifle business activity and cost countless numbers of jobs. The one country to bear the brunt of this scheme would be the USA.
China and India, the filthiest nations on the planet will tell the UN to take their tax and cram it.
So where are you going with your carbon tax rant?

OK:

1. I did not claim, at any point, that "Just because a theory has been presented, that it is fact". I in fact very specifically said that there is some doubt as to whether the man-made theory is true. Like a dozen times in this thread, in fact.

2. There have been many studies done that do in fact prove that the earth is in fact warming. In fact, I started this thread with an example of one in the OP. So I hope that's not what you're referring to with your "the only conclusive study done" line.

and

3. The chart in the link I posted is made up of hundreds of links to explanations of the points made in it. It pretty much contains a summary of every argument for warming being man-made. Click on the links. I'm not saying that is specifically what I believe, you just asked for supporting arguments, and I just provided you with a shit-load of them.

You are defending it as fact. You are convinced there is human caused global warming.
"Many studies"..Ok, show me. Unbiased only.
Have at it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Google "Pascal's wager", fool.

Yeah, and why dont you google 'red herring', twat-face.

 

[theunbubba]

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

Yep, even skeptics like Richard Muller and Anthony Watts are now admitting that Global Warming is in fact a real phenomena.

Although, in a move that would be funny if it weren't so sad, Global Warming doubter Anthony Watts is claiming that's what he said all along...

Bullshit. Your skeptic was a ringer. We are not impressed at all.

 

[theunbubba]

Here's the biggest hole in the global warmist timelines and baselines.
I dare any of you to show me ice cores from the last 20 years showing ice accumulation. Since the glaciers are melting I doubt you can produce any. Then what do you think would happen if there was a similar period in the past? What fucking evidence would exist? There would be no accumulation from the medieval warm period, and the tree rings would not agree with the fucking core samples. The idiot researchers threw out the tree rings because they didn't agree with the ice cores, not the other way around. These dumbasses will not admit their mistake if you prove it to them.

They threw out the wrong damned timeline.
They used the wrong baseline.
If there's no ice to sample you don't agree with the tree rings.
Well duh.
dumbass!

 

[Oddball]

Google "Pascal's wager", fool.

Yeah, and why dont you google 'red herring', twat-face.

Right after you look up "you're too fucking stupid to recognize I'm on your side", old goat.

 

[asterism]

i think the majority of scientists agree that the earth is warming. i, personally, don't know of any scientists who can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it's caused, or not caused, by man.

I don't know any scientists that can say anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

fact is, we're just not sure yet.

That's what a lot of folks - some with their own websites - have been saying.

You are demonstrating the disconnect Climate Change Advocates who happen to be Scientists have with everyday citizens and with those who lean conservative.

It appears you have no use for those people.

 

[Vast LWC]

You are defending it as fact.

No sir, I did no such thing. My position is that it is highly probable, with room for doubt.

That is a far cry from "defending it as fact".

You are convinced there is human caused global warming.

Again, my position is "mostly convinced".

"Many studies"..Ok, show me. Unbiased only.
Have at it.

Well, of course there is the NASA study that you mentioned...
But NASA has actually had two separate departments conduct entirely separate studies. So there's that...

Then there's:

Berkeley Earth (The subject of the OP) in which several prominent skeptics were included and convinced of the accuracy of the data.

East Anglia's Instrumental temperature record which has not been disproven, despite the contents of the "ClimateGate" e-mails.

The Hadley Centre's Global Climate Model

MIT's Center for Global Change Science

The US Geological Survey

The NCAR's (in collaboration with universities and private industry) Nested Regional Climate Model

There's more... But I'm not going to sit here all day and find them for you.

 

[Vast LWC]

Bullshit. Your skeptic was a ringer. We are not impressed at all.

Yes, of course.

Watts and Muller, despite years of prominent skepticism of global warming, and many articles refuting the results of previous studies, were simply planted among the skeptic community from the beginning, by the vast Global Warming conspiracy.

You know, the thing about insane conspiracy theorists is this:

No matter what evidence you supply them with, they will always simply create a whole new level of conspiracy to explain it away.

Well done sir. Well. Done.

 

[paulitician]

Gawd, are the usual suspect Socialist/Globalists still here pushing their Global Warming scam? Man, give it a rest. It's over. Your 15 Minutes are up. No one cares about your scam anymore. Now you're just beating a dead horse. Fear Monger all you want, but bullshit is still bullshit. It's over. But hey, there's always 'Global Cooling.'

 

[Vast LWC]

Gawd, are the usual suspect Socialist/Globalists still here pushing their Global Warming scam? Man, give it a rest. It's over. Your 15 Minutes are up. No one cares about your scam anymore. Now you're just beating a dead horse. Fear Monger all you want, but bullshit is still bullshit. It's over. But hey, there's always 'Global Cooling.'

Blanket denial...

Unsubstantiated, vague claims of some sort of "scam"...

and insults.

Really, this post isn't worthy of a response. So I wonder why I'm writing this?