Palerider. You seem to think that because I support the view on scientific grounds that man-induced global warming is occurring, that I must defend it as if I am a lone wolf in the wilderness, as if it is not already fully accepted by the world's scientific community.
More claims you can not support. The worlds scientific community has not accepted the hypothesis and as time goes on and the basic science proves itself to be more and more shoddy, climate science risks ending up in the same boat with eugenics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. AGW is supported by the vast majority of the world's scientists
Prove it.
as well as most governments.
Political power. Nothing more.
The fact is that a very small very right wing minority of scientists (most of whom are either on the payroll of the oil giants, or have received funding from them, and many of whom aren't even scientists at all) don't support the view, and are bleeping like sheeps to tear it down.
Prove that.
Turns out you are full of claims that reveal that you are every bit the acolyte that I said you were.
The fact is that they claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas when over 60 years of research clearly shows it is.
So lets see one bit of hard, observed evidence that proves that CO2 is responsible for climate change. You would think that in 60 years there would be at least some hard observed testable repeatable evidence and yet, there is none. A few gas in a bottle experiments that are only valid in closed systems and that is it. And yet, you and yours believe. Explain that.
The fact is that they make all kinds of excuses for why the Earth is warming, but cannot say what is causing the current warming, or why it is warming so rapidly.
Again, claims that you can not prove. The medieval warm period came on faster and warmer than the present which takes "unprecedented" out of your arsenal. Or are you going to deny all those peer reviewed studies? I can give you dozens more, but it isn't the science that drives you, it is your faith.
All they can do is repeat the mantra that "we didn't do it", and yet cannot explain what,if not global warming, that 6 billion tons of CO2 every year is doing to our atmosphere, and apparently believe that it is a completely inert gas.
More appeal to ridicule in lieu of evidence to support your claims. Predictable.
And because they can't give an alternative theory that actually explains the fact (which they can't even agree on themselves much less agree with anyone else on what those facts are), they (like their creationist brethren, who, by the way, really are "priests", or preachers, if you will, religious folk) concentrate their efforts on trying to destroy not only the science, but the individuals who practice it.
An alternative theory is not necessary if one is simply pointing out bad science. I have no problem stating that we don't know what is driving the climate, but we can state pretty confidently that it is not CO2. CO2 is a political scapegoat and nothing more.
I give you the non-existent scandal that was climategate, which by the way, really was a scandal, the scandal being that someone illegally accessed a government server to illegally obtain private e-mails of certain scientists, and then post select examples of those e-mails on the internet in order to attempt to defame those individuals and also derail the international climate negotiations that occurred only a few days after those communications went public.
Do you drink your koolaid with a straw or straight from the bucket?
The fact that every single one of those scientists were exonerated of the accusations that we made about them escapes them, or else they claim the investigations were a whitewash.
In the CRU investigation, jones was not even asked if the CRU scientists had deleted emails. Considering that fact, how thorough do you believe the investiation actually was. You might also consider the gross conflict of interest on the investagative committess across the board.
You sound more like an acolyte all the time.
In fact, set an example for your side and openly publish all of your private e-mails for all the world to see so you can prove to the whole world that you've done nothing unethical in your own field.
My email is subject to review at any time but since I am not involved in an attempt to scam the whole world, and am not involved in manipulating and falsifying data in an attempt to prove a piss poor hypothesis, I have no worries with regard to what might be there.
