SO.. BUSH WAS AN IDIOT??

[phacemeltar]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The globe is getting hotter on average. At the same time, there are specific parts of the globe that are not getting hotter. If you can't understand that, you're a moron.

But look, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, without rational thought, so there's nothing I can do for you. When you want to start using your brain instead of just parroting whatever that crazy conspiracy website you read told you, come back here.

how can you claim that one resource is better than another for information? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by phacemeltar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

how can you claim that one fringe resource with little to no data/credibility to back it up is better than the best model that has been produced based on the contributions of virtually the entire scientific community? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

Fixed.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually I once was a brainwashed global warming drool cup. Then I used my brain instead of parroting everything Al Gore says (who's set up to make billions in carbon credits).

All Gore is a politician before anything. There's a reason he's not the poster child for environmental awareness any more (even when he was, he was mostly a joke). Pick a new drum to beat on.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by phacemeltar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

how can you claim that one resource is better than another for information? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

It has nothing to do with information sources (well, I mean of course it does, but that's not why I'm giving up on this discussion).

If someone can't explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie, then they have a giant gaping hole in their world view. No amount of ranting at me about "them" and all the evil things "they" are doing is going to change that hole.

We're talking about are thousands of real people all over the world here, not shadowy phantoms in a paranoid schizophrenic's imagination. And not thousands of slick political operatives either, but nerdy scientists who devoted their lives to studying climate. All of them (except for <5% nutjobs) agree that global warming/climate change is real and man-made, so either they're all being controlled by an orbital mind control laser, or ... ?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It has nothing to do with information sources (well, I mean of course it does, but that's not why I'm giving up on this discussion).

If someone can't explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie, then they have a giant gaping hole in their world view. No amount of ranting at me about "them" and all the evil things "they" are doing is going to change that hole.

We're talking about are thousands of real people all over the world here, not shadowy phantoms in a paranoid schizophrenic's imagination. And not thousands of slick political operatives either, but nerdy scientists who devoted their lives to studying climate. All of them (except for <5% nutjobs) agree that global warming/climate change is real and man-made, so either they're all being controlled by an orbital mind control laser, or ... ?

I'm assuming that you think that there hasn't been a big buildup to the current belief in global warming. This has been a long process to get people on board. Didn't just happen overnight. Until relatively recently there was barely a 50/50 consensus on global warming. Need to learn some history young padawon.

[loramin]

Actually, the consensus has been around for awhile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys...climate_change

But let's say it's taken 20 years for scientists to agree, which would be a perfectly normal timeline for scientists to come to a consensus on a new issue. Please explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie over the course of the past twenty years.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm assuming that you think that there hasn't been a big buildup to the current belief in global warming. This has been a long process to get people on board. Didn't just happen overnight. Until relatively recently there was barely a 50/50 consensus on global warming. Need to learn some history young padawon.

This is clearly fabricated information. All available reputable sources tell a very different (and much more plausible) story.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is clearly fabricated information. All available reputable sources tell a very different (and much more plausible) story.

Who decides what is and isn't reputable?

[Nirgon]

This thread gave me cancer

[loramin]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And so what? Consensus has been proven time and time again wrong. Copernicus and Galileo's books were initially burned. Humans are sheep, it's foolish to believe the scientific community is infallible.

As I said before, you all trust the official story on all other science. When you break your leg you don't tell your doctor "the scientific community is fallible and I don't want to be a sheep; rub some ducks on my wound!"

But for some reason, when it comes to a topic that big oil and big coal have paid millions to confuse you about, you suddenly don't trust the scientists. I wonder why?