Your “99.9%” of the scientific research is rendered invalid, since your side has been caught screwing with the data.

Man’s role in warming has been proven through scientific research, and spelled out for you in IPCC reports. That you don’t value actual science doesn’t negate that. You make claims about the manipulation of data, and use those to generalize about ALL scientists, and ALL research, but as I’ve tried to explain to you countless times, this is a farce. My argument IS proven, in scientific literature. Now, it is your turn to counter it with a VALID rebuttal. It is YOU who has failed to prove your assertion that the ACTUAL science, referenced in IPCC reports is bunk, or based on manipulated data. In order to prove this, you would need to provide critical examples where data was manipulated, proof that the manipulation occurred, AND a logical argument for how the tainted research negates the theory that recent warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature. It would be nice, by the way, if you could also find one or two arguments that provided a viable alternative explanation for 20th century warming, which are backed by scientific research.

I don’t know if you truly realize how vast of a conspiracy theory you are touting here. Nearly every scientific body in the world agrees with the theory that recent warming has been MOSTLY anthropogenic in nature. We’re talking the world’s Academies of Science, Earth Science, Meteorology, Paleoclimatology, Biology, Human Health, Physics, and other various scientific organizations from all around the world. Do you really believe that all of these people have been duped, or are in on this massive “fraud”?

So, I’m not going anywhere. I would honestly like to see what proof you have to support your claims. I know that you think it’s all bunk. I want to see you prove it. What, specifically, was manipulated, and how does it negate the theory of AGW?

Your “99.9%” of the scientific research is rendered invalid, since your side has been caught screwing with the data.

Talking heads, like you and so many other trolls who endlessly jump on right-leaning sites, and for what? To “edumacate” us poor conservative hicks? No, not buying the altruism here. You and your ilk are simply here to annoy. Job well done, you’re annoying.

Politicians. Snookums, there are a hell of a lot more politicians pushing this nonsense than are standing against it; no wonder, considering how much mney there is to be made. Al Gore is a prime example; he was worth a little over 2 mil when he lost the 2000 election. He’s now worth over 20. And once again, you claim I haven’t read any of the research, haven’t looked at a single scrap of data, I’m just repeating Glenn Beck’s talking points, or Rush, or whomever. And again, no. Most of the stuff I read DOES come from your side. AND AGAIN, even people on YOUR side are having trouble reconciling the numbers.

All that you’ve managed to prove is your loyalty to the meme. You haven’t proven that Man is responsible for the climate changes, you haven’t proven that your side DIDN’T fudge the numbers, you haven’t proven a damn thing, other than the fact that you support the side that has been caught LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO PUSH THEIR AGENDA.

THIS is why no one gives half a damn what you say. This is why you aren’t going to convince anyone that you have the first clue what you’re talking about. You and the rest of the Global Warming/Cooling/Whatever moonies have shot your credibility.

Had such a thing happened on the Right, your side would be DEMANDING public stonings, fines, and hunting down anyone that had so much as passed them on the street and discrediting them. But we’re supposed to just blow off the FACT that your side has committed the greatest fraud in the world’s history.

Nope. Sorry. I’m holding you and your side to the exact same standards you insist we follow, and giving you the exact same treatment the Right would receive; ridicule and dismissal:

You’re an idiot. Goodbye.

Funny, but this is essentially all that the left has provided.

No, TFMo, here is where you are terrbily wrong. My side as 99.9% of the scientific research on the subject backing us up. You only have a lot of special interests, talking heads, and politicians, backed by a few rogue scientists and their opinions, none of which have passed a scientific test. A person can have an opinion all day, but what matters is whether it can be proven in scientific literature. If you’d ever look into it (which you haven’t), you’d see that most statements from people on my side are generally backed by scientific research.

What specific did you provide?

Is DDT OFFICIALLY banned in Africa. No, but…

Exactly. DDT is not and wasn’t ever banned for antimalarial use. Please provide some source for your claim that the UN will punish anyone for using DDT in an antimalarial capacity.

As for your “evidence” of AGW, there is a distinct difference between coincidence and causation…

That’s exactly the problem. Very detailed analyses have been performed in order to determine the causes of warming. You have provided no rebuttals to these scientific findings. Instead, you have only made general arguments against the credibility of the science, based on very question anecdotal evidence and incorrect assumptions. Now, do you value science or not? You lament AGW being about politics rather than science, but you have yet to provide anything remotely resembling a scientific argument.

As for your models, considering how the hysterics have fudged the data and attempted to DESTROY the raw data, it calls their results into question.

This overgeneralization is fallacious and irrational. You are blindly ignoring scientific findings, based on your misunderstanding about the private conversations between a handful of scientists. Not smart.

No, we DON’T know this is happening, nor do we know the exact cause of any of it happening if it actually is.

You’re right. YOU don’t know if anything is happening, because you’re acting like a child with his fingers in his ears, singing “I can’t hear you!”. I’ve given you several pieces of scientific evidence for AGW, and you still haven’t specifically countered any of it. You’ve only diverted with red herrings about CRU, DDT, and your general distrust of scientists.

To be honest, I don’t know if there’s anything I could provide for you to convince you that man is mostly at fault. This is a scientific subject, which needs to be understood through scientific research. Therefore, any evidence I provide will either be, or will be the result of, scientific research. Judging by the complete disdain you have shown to date for scientists and the scientific process, I can’t see that there is any credible evidence I could provide for you that you wouldn’t simply dismiss as a product of evil libruhl sienteests, who manipyoolayt datuh.

If all of the work of climate scientists to date — everything the IPCC reports are based on — is complete and total bunk, wouldn’t it be extremely easy to refute in scientific literature? Couldn’t the arguments be picked apart extremely easily? If so, why hasn’t that been done? If you think it has, where is it?

Funny, but this is essentially all that the left has provided. Seems to be perfectly acceptable for YOUR side, but when we do it, we’re “ignoring science.” Typical. And again, the left has managed to screw this one up by providing false data and attempting to “redefine” peer review.

Is DDT OFFICIALLY banned in Africa. No, but the UN is trying to make it official. And rather than impose an OFFICIAL ban in Africa, they’ve made it abundantly clear that the full use of DDT there will be punished.

As for your “evidence” of AGW, there is a distinct difference between coincidence and causation (something you lefties still haven’t figured out.) If my son blows out his birthday candles and wishes for a bike, then discovers we bought him a bike, it does NOT mean that his blowing out the candles and making a wish made it happen.

As for your models, considering how the hysterics have fudged the data and attempted to DESTROY the raw data, it calls their results into question. Your argument boils down to “so we don’t have real data…we still KNOW this is whats happening.”

No, we DON’T know this is happening, nor do we know the exact cause of any of it happening if it actually is. Pushing a meme is not proof. Stamping your foot and insisting it’s true does not make it so. So far, all that has been proven is that the climate is changing. Congratulations. You’ve proved that our climate is not the exact same day after day. You have not PROVEN that Man is the cause. At best, you’ve proven that the climate is changing and living creatures on this planet produce CO2.

More importantly, your side has proven that, by cooking the books and destroying data to avoid FOIRs, we can not simply take their word or their research at face value.

So, I’m supposed to just agree with the evidence provided, or I’m “dissing” it? Really? I provided detailed objections. Do you have any rebuttals for them?

You know, for a group of people who constantly complain that AGW is about politics rather than science, you all don’t seem to understand or appreciate science. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but a list of names is not science, and neither is an opinion piece written by a scientist or a bunch of random links. You need a hypothesis, which you can then test in scientific research.

So, do you value science or not? So you have rebuttals for any of my points? Do you have any counterpoints for my evidence that man is mostly to blame for recent warming? Or, do you just want to continue to avoid any detailed arguments, and instead, drink the denialist kool-aid?

So, you have no specific rebuttals to my actual claims, which are based on scientific findings?

Also, I haven’t stated that man is “absolutely and entirely” at fault. I have stated, as has the IPCC report, that man is MOSTLY at fault. No credible scientist denies that there are also natural factors at play.

I have two problems with your petition. First of all, it is not scientific proof of anything. It is the opinion of various people. Secondly, it has been shown to be filled with many, many errors. It contains numerous fake names, duplicates, and even people who have publicly stated that they do not agree with the petition. It uses the term “scientist” very loosely, as only a handful of signers are scientists in the relevant field. Besides that, the methods by which the petition was carried out were questionable at best. I even received a copy in the mail. This thing was sent out to anyone and everyone, and contained very misleading information, with a form to fill out and send in. Not at all objective. In short, the petition is bunk.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285

Your article from Lindzen is interesting, because in it, he basically agrees with 95% or more percent of climate science, some of which many skeptics still debate. His argument lies in the amount and even direction of feedbacks, such as water vapor. Again, I have two problems with this. First, he must make his case in scientific literature. This is an article, which states his opinion. Secondly, he does have an alternate explanation for recent warming, called the Iris Hypothesis, but it has been tested and it has so far failed in research attempts. So, he resorts to misleading the public in the media. That’s fine and dandy, but it doesn’t discount the research that has been done to date.

And finally, you have a link to page, which states that global warming is a hoax? So, the planet hasn’t warmed? Is that the argument? It seems that your pieces of evidence don’t even agree with each other.

Trish, please put together a logical argument, not just a few links you find through a quick google search. I’ve provided you with several scientific pieces of evidence, all backed by scientific research, and documented in the IPCC report, and you’ve provided me with a debunked “petition”, one rogue scientist’s opinion, and a link to a very non-scientific page. Do you discredit science as a whole?

What do you have to say about the evidence I have provided for you?

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm