Maybe this is considered left-wing propaganda? http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=175&Print=Yes
He will refuse to acknowledge anything based directly on science conducted by climatologists. He will respond with his fictional picture of the Earth along with the 10 year "cooling trend" blurb, even though the trend was specifically addressed in the article to which you posted a link.
The Earth is warming, and we are currently in a short term cooling period, which the now-it-all climatologists failed to predict with their flawed forecasting models. Since I have spoke to this, I am not going to retype my remarks. Here is what I said in the Saving the Planet thread about global warming generally: It is important to differentiate between "global warming" and "anthromopomorhic global warming" (or AGW for short). Anthropomorphic global warming is the man-made part. That is really the only part that is disputed, and rightfully so. As far as "global warming" goes, the Earth has been warming and the Arctic ice sheets have been melting since the last ice age. Here is a depiction of what the Earth may have looked like around 12,000 years ago: Clearly, the Earth was colder then, and it is warmer now. The observation that the Arctic ice cap is melting is an observation that goes back around 12,000 years. Nearly all of the melting that has occurred, occurred prior to the industrial age (which goes back less than 200 years). All of the melting that occurred prior to the beginning of the industrial age is obviously not "anthropomorphic global warming". And now, over the last 10+ years, the Earth has actually cooled a bit. We are not at all time highs even within our lifetimes. Here is an article from the BBC on the topic: What happened to global warming? If the effect of CO2 that has been and is being pumped into the atmosphere is as compelling and dangerous as the AGW alarmists suggest, then how is it possible that the Earth has actually cooled over the last decade? If you take the predictive climate models used by Al Gore and his associates at the United Nations seriously, then we are in a state of crisis, the situation is dire, the need for corrective action is urgent and their is no time for delay. But truth be told, none of these predictive climate models used by Al Gore and the UN predicted the cooling period that we are now entering. But here it is anyway. What are we to make of that? What these people have been preaching to us is not real science. It is agenda-driven propaganda. Once again, the Earth has certainly warmed. But the so-called science surrounding the claims of the AGW alarmists is weak and not sufficiently substantiated to warrant betting our economic futures on. There needs to be a lot more work done on this.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what's happening in the Philippines. How am I not surprised you would be ignorant of this?
I think what we are to make of that is that the trends are not linear and that the scientific evidence means less to you than promoting an agenda.
So, you will post EXACTLY THE SAME THING yet again? This has been debunked repeatedly by several people. Come back when you can answer the science that shows your "analysis" to be deeply flawed.
Science has spoken. Come up with some alternative science or you are nothing more than a common troll.
Remember that they only resort to these personal attacks when they run out of legitimate counter-points to your arguments. I wouldn't worry about them - if you're attacked personally, it means you're winning debates here.
This particular set of "attacks" (I hesitate to call the subdued jabs in this thread "attacks," but WTF) was started by MojoMan ignoring science with regards to AGW. If he acts like a whiny little *****, he should get used to being called out on it.
come on, G, let's keep it civil. "Calling people out" can be done without resorting to personal insults or attacks.
Hmmm. Beyond another ironometer shattering post, the truth is that people seem to get frustrated when a poster goes poof in the face of detailed argumentation, data, and refutation of his/her own weak sauce.
They are The Jazz. The rough and tumble stuff is for offense. On defense, they fall on the floor and cry like a baby.
I appreciate your encouragement. I was looking at the FAQ for BBS rookies thread, which speaks to the topic of name calling and personal attacks: In case anyone around here is really serious about any of that, I just thought it might be helpful to call attention to the rampant pattern and practice of this sort of conduct by a number of the left leaning posters around here.
"Whiny little *****" is about the size of it, though. WAAAAAHHHH, they won't believe the post I made on AGW with a fictional picture of the globe and ten years of data. He actually said in black and white that he will only respond to the posts that are up to some standard that only he is aware of. This guy is little more than a loquacious basso and deserves to be treated as such. If he gets to pick and choose the "worthy" arguments that are deserving of his reply, then he will reap what he sows.
Again with the personal attacks. I hope you realize that this kind of conduct says more about you than it does about me.
