Thank you for demonstrating my point! The debate has "been over" since the very beginning. You demonstrate very clearly your inability to understand basic scientific principals like dependent/independent variables, causality and correlation. Global warming supporters have NEVER wanted to have a debate - they run on CONDITIONING, ie pounding an idea into your head with a hammer until it fits. I see nothing scientific whatsoever demonstrating human activity is responsible. Peer review study is the golden standard of science. When you BAN the opposing viewpoints, or simply declare "the debate is over" you aren't having peer review. Its that simple. Science can defend itself, it doesn't need your help.
NO ONE has told me what is wrong with the most basic explanation of man made global warming. Do you not believe CO2 is being released by manmade processes? Do you think the fact that the sun's radiation is the same as the Earth after absorbing/reflecting/radiating ? Do you think CO2 absorbs/reflects all frequencies of radiation the same ? I ask this OVER and OVER. No one wants to explain to me where this falls apart.
If anyone wants to see another lunatic, read the guy above.
Apparently global warming has some big mafia behind it. All those scientists etc, they're just wanting better jobs.. yea, thats the ticket ! 95%+ that we live in, now just decided to blow smoke up our ass because they need jobs and are controlled by corporations and can't think for themselves.
Ah this old chestnut. Human caused global warming policy supporters would NEVER make claims about a giant energy conglomerates conspiring to rob people of as many resources as possible would they?
You probably didn't notice in your nicely air conditioned home that there is a depression going on. This means less jobs, and a lot more pressure to "tow the line" and get whatever results daddy with the pocketbook wants so they can not only feed themselves but fund research they ACTUALLY want to do. Also don't forget massive student loan debt, and the fact that along with having an opposing viewpoint comes ejection from your job. Who is going to hire a research scientist that burns his sponsors? Scientists are humans subject to the same threats as anyone else, and you'd be surprised how little most of them make.
Also last I checked corporations are composed of inanimate objects and stacks of paperwork. It is a legal entity, so no corporations can't think for themselves. They rely on humans to run it, and humans certainly never cheat for lots of money, divert responsibility, or make mistakes now do they? I would like for you to explain to me how YOU personally aren't subject to corporations, and how scientists are some how exempt from this pressure.
I would love to see the source of your "95%+ of the guys who basically made the modern world" quote.
(note your ass is not an acceptable source)
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html 97% of 12,000 PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BEING MAN MADE.
In your first paragraph you ranted on about no peer review. What on Earth are you talking about ? Do you live in a separate reality ? HELLLO BUUELLLER ?
How mental are you people ?
I knew it was 97%, but dropped it down to 95% just so I felt 100% confident.
You can say the skeptics are kicked out of the peer review journals and so forth, but it'll never end. If you believe that, then you believe that the type of men who pretty much advanced us to the modern age are now in some huge conspiracy like they can't afford their academic lifestyles anymore. I could try and guess the "conspiracies" you guys will concoct if you actually bother to respond to this paragraph.
It is a bit tiresome responding to lunacy, so I misspeak at times and lose my clarity. Guys publishing in peer reviewed journals by and large are not going to be that controlled by corporations assuming they're usually from academia. And if they are influenced by someone who has interest in denying manmade global warming, then thats why the papers are (supposedly) peer reviewed.
Anyway, read your first paragraph then read the study I posted for you. Tell me your issue with that. I got ripped into using anecdotal evidence to respond to anecdotal evidence, but thats all I have seen from you guys. It is either that, or a graph that shows the earth's temperature cycles every 100k years. <eyeroll>. It is either too much data (comparing 400k climate change occurring after 100 year of industrial revolution) or just anecdotal.
97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles...
And he tells me there is not enough peer review.
This is why reddit's subreddit booted you guys.
