The New Global Warming Thread

[Lucky Shot]

There are blogs in there, leftward leaning publications, political lobbying groups, companies that receive revenue from the advertising of lobbying groups and policy wonks. I don't see a single one in there from my list of approved sources that I would accept. Bring me back a source already.

Lucky Shot

[Lucky Shot]

Most of your first 20 links are broken (specifically livescience and sciam). Most of the rest have already been discussed in this thread. None of these seem to have the benefit of the updated GISS temperatures and many appear to be totally ignorant of the fact. One went so far as labelling 2005 as the hottest year ever when it wasn't. Many of the links you posted were just of a search browser result where you typed in Global Warming. Not sure why Wikipedia is linked as the information could be changed at anyone's whim. So yea, I actually looked at some of the links you posted but if you can't get the links right then I guess we can write that failure off to global warming too.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

There are blogs in there, leftward leaning publications, political lobbying groups, companies that receive revenue from the advertising of lobbying groups and policy wonks. I don't see a single one in there from my list of approved sources that I would accept. Bring me back a source already.

Lucky Shot

The world's largest scientific organization (AAAS), the European Geoscience Union, North America's largest union of earth and climate scientists (AGU), and the Joint science academies of the WORLD all agree that global warming is happening, caused by in part by humans, and going to get worse. You have yet to offer a single shred of evidence that any other major science association claims any different (which they don't because they would be laughed off the face of the Earth), despite my repeated requests. Non profits that get money from lobbying groups? Oh my god! That never happens. I thought they just printed their own money too. Good thing you caught that. That changes everything. I too trust the insignificant groups backed by Republican think-tanks, oil companies and coal companies, over every single non profit funded by science and environmental lobbyists and so-called "policy wonks".

Ban me from the forum or TG, but you are truly an ideologue. I wouldn't even want to play a video game on a team with someone as completely incapable of reading or understanding as you are, or with such little respect for others. The fact that you would even have the nerve to flap your mouth without a single shred of evidence to support a word you said about the acceptability of the dozens of world's best known and respected science organizations proves you just don't have any clue as to what you are talking about. Plain and simple. "Left leaning"? What the hell does that even mean other than that you claim reality has a political agenda?

If you are too thick-headed to realize that even your own political party not only believes in global warming (because it's happening right now!), but is asking people to change their lives as we speak in order to combat it, then there is just no hope you ever will understand. I truly hope this issue is what bring you to the polls, a Republican wins, and you have to live the next 4 years wondering why the person you voted for is acting like global warming is real all the sudden. I suggest you play a lot less video games, because something has severely affected your judgment.

And just for the record, the GISS temperature data means very little. You just refuse to believe it. If you actually read science news or understood anything about this issue you would already know that though. Show me one major news story where a science association dropped the claims about global warming because the GISS data is slightly different. New GISS data is nothing but a footnote. A slight change in only ground temperature data doesn't change what has happened to this planet over the past many years! C02 levels don't magically dissipate, water doesn't reappear where it used to be so people can return to their communities, animals don't see the new GISS numbers and decide to go back from where they migrated from, sea levels don't drop and their temperatures cool because they read the same bloggers you do, coral doesn't just spring back to life because the surface temperatures might be slightly different than were previously recorded, and polar ice doesn't just jump back up on the ice shelf and refreeze.

Lifted from the skepticforum: If you don't understand it, maybe it's you:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[GlobalWarmin]

Skeptics have yet to show:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

[Lucky Shot]

With most people talking global warming you get the feeling that they have read the material and understand the material, I don't get that feeling from you. For some reason I think you feel that you will be more successful with calling people names and foaming at the mouth. But if you can't have a conversation with someone without belittling them, which you have proven you can't over 10 pages, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the sandbox. GISS data is one of the components that was used to show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The adjustments changed the top 10 warmest years from between 1988 and 2006 to the top 10 years being spread out over 7 decades. But I am proud of you that you could get 100% of your links to work in post 693 and hey, it insults me again! Your a real winner!

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

With most people talking global warming you get the feeling that they have read the material and understand the material, I don't get that feeling from you. For some reason I think you feel that you will be more successful with calling people names and foaming at the mouth. But if you can't have a conversation with someone without belittling them, which you have proven you can't over 10 pages, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the sandbox. GISS data is one of the components that was used to show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The adjustments changed the top 10 warmest years from between 1988 and 2006 to the top 10 years being spread out over 7 decades. But I am proud of you that you could get 100% of your links to work in post 693 and hey, it insults me again! Your a real winner!

Lucky Shot

Skeptics have yet to show:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

[Lucky Shot]

Skeptics have yet to show:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

Start reading through here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ush-admin.html

Read through this thread here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ng-thread.html
Plenty of links to browse through that should be able to hit all of your requests.

[GlobalWarmin]

Start reading through here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ush-admin.html

Read through this thread here: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ng-thread.html
Plenty of links to browse through that should be able to hit all of your requests.

Then link them! Your refusal to respect the simplest of requests in the interest of having a serious discussion about global warming has blown this way out of proportion. You know so much about it so it should be extremely easy for you to locate all of these reputable sources that you get your information from. I knew about everything I provided above already, so it only took me a few minutes to quickly find over 60 links from major sources of relevant information to support every single word I have said. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

I've asked for DAYS for you to provide any evidence for all of your politically claims, and all you do is refer (hilariously) to tacticalgamer discussions, that I should read through all the great wisdom that is contained therein and be enlightened.

You flame me because you can't read, completely ignore almost all of my questions and well thought out responses, accuse me of being ignorant to the issue, hypocritical, and lacking any integrity -- all without any logical evidence other than your own words to back those claims. I accuse you of having a political agenda (which you clearly do), being unable to read (which you have proven several times -- see your comments about the amount of resources I had provided, the paper from scientist that I think you thought disproved the IPCC findings, and the comments you made about what happens to water when you add or subtract only one degree) and refusing to provide any evidence to counter my claims in the form of non political news (which you have done for days now) -- and your feelings get hurt and you want me gone. You sir, are a TRUE Republican, which should be a badge of honor for you instead of taking it as in insult.

Still waiting on:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

- Proof that either Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others are disreputable in the eyes of independent watchdog groups, science organizations, major news media, or journalists organizations.

Until you have done those seemingly simple things, you have no argument and are truly only saying "I am right and you are wrong". I am saying these people are right:

Livescience (and all of their partners CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NASA, NOAA...), The Weather Channel, PBS (and all affiliates like Earth and Sky), Christian Science Monitor, Scientific American, Union of Concerned Scientists, NY Times, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund, BBC, AAAS, EGU, AGU, Joint Science Academies of the World, American Meteorological Society, RealClimate.org, Fair.org, Science Journal, Climate Change Journal, USA Today, National Geographic and others.

They all agree that global warming is happening right now.

[Lucky Shot]

Then link them! Your refusal to respect the simplest of requests in the interest of having a serious discussion about global warming has blown this way out of proportion. You know so much about it so it should be extremely easy for you to locate all of these reputable sources that you get your information from. I knew about everything I provided above already, so it only took me a few minutes to quickly find over 60 links from major sources of relevant information to support every single word I have said.

I've asked for DAYS for you to provide any evidence for your ALL of your politically motivated claims, and all you do is refer (hilariously) to tacticalgamer discussions, that I should read through all the great wisdom that is contained therein and be enlightened.

You flame me because you can't read, completely ignore almost all of my questions and well thought out responses, accuse me of being ignorant to the issue, hypocritical, and lacking any integrity -- all without any logical evidence other than your own words to back those claims. I accuse you of having a political agenda (which you clearly do), being unable to read (which you have proven several times -- see your comments about the amount of resources I had provided, the paper from scientist that I think you thought disproved the IPCC findings, and the comments you made about what happens to water when you add or subtract only one degree) and refusing to provide any evidence to counter my claims in the form of non political news (which you have done for days now) -- and your feelings get hurt and you want me gone. You sir, are a TRUE Republican, which should be a badge of honor for you instead of taking it as in insult.

Read through the threads they are in there, no reason for me to have to repost them due to your inherent laziness. Don't accuse me of not being able to read when you refuse to even open a link. Your links are faulty, arguments flawed, and logic poor.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

Read through the threads they are in there, no reason for me to have to repost them due to your inherent laziness. Don't accuse me of not being able to read when you refuse to even open a link. Your links are faulty, arguments flawed, and logic poor.

Lucky Shot

Here is your argument so far: "I am right, and mainstream science and media are wrong about global warming. I won't provide any evidence to support my claims right now, but if someone wants to read a discussion on a video game forum, that will explain everything to them. I get my news and information from reputable sources, but I won't tell you what ones. The largest science organizations in the world don't know as much about global warming as I do. I demand evidence to prove the contrary, and them I will discount it as flawed just because I don't like what it says. I also refuse to provide any evidence to support my claims against the dozens of reputable organizations and millions of scientists that I say have a political agenda and are lying. Someone else is lazy and dumb."

[AMosely]

Still waiting on:

- One news story from any non political source where a major science group claims the IPCC assessment is incorrect and motivated by politics.

- A claim by one major science organization that rejects the idea of global warming.

- Proof that there are even articles appearing in any major news sources that confirm any claims made against the IPCC or the reality of global warming.

- Proof of one news story where a science organization reversed their position on global warming because of slightly different GISS data from NASA.

I must admit, while GlobalWarmin's forum behavior is a bit raucus, these are intriguing questions and shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily. Regardless of the IPCC's stated bias toward the human factor - I've seen no comparable organization - political, media or scientific (and the IPCC most certainly is a independent scientific organization) - that comes close to their level of analysis and conclusion. If someone has come across such a group, of any composition, please submit that information to this thread.

[Lucky Shot]

Here is your argument so far: "I am right, and discount any links previously provided around with flaws about global warming. I won't provide any evidence to support my claims right now, but if I spout off loud enough and long enough people will leave and I won't ever have to back anything up. I selectively handpick my sources and reject every other source because it is not mine. When questions appear around the basic building blocks of the science, I reject them out of hand without even reading them. While I can reject others sources based on 'I Say So' I will get offended and call others names when the return the favor. My evidence will be search engines so that when you press the link I provide it will give you 30 different articles that may or may not be about the item in discussion or it may be a broken link that sends you to an error page. I will use lobbying organizations with political agendas as my primary source. Someone else is lazy and dumb."

Lucky Shot

[leejo]

GW, you are one giant waste of time. To quote The Big Lebowski, "you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know..."

It seems to me that either you should do everyone the courtesy of reading through the thread and catching up on the conversation, or you should put a sock in it. You are convincing no-one of anything except some things about yourself that need improvement, and I hope that isn't what you hope to accomplish.

Step back, ask yourself what you want to get out of this conversation, ask yourself if you're getting it, and adjust.

[GlobalWarmin]

I must admit, while GlobalWarmin's forum behavior is a bit raucus, these are intriguing questions and shouldn't be dismissed quite so easily. Regardless of the IPCC's stated bias toward the human factor - I've seen no comparable organization - political, media or scientific (and the IPCC most certainly is a independent scientific organization) - that comes close to their level of analysis and conclusion. If someone has come across such a group, of any composition, please submit that information to this thread.

Thank you. Had anyone bothered to answer these simple questions, instead of flaming me, things would have remained much more civil.

I have provided the exact same information in favor of my argument in one easy to access page, and I do not see how it is outrageous to ask others to provide just a few links to support their position. The dead news story links can be found just a few pages back, so me having a few broken links out of 60 hardly gives someone the right to claim I haven't provided my sources. I should not have to dig through page after page of amateur opinion on an internet forum to prove your own argument for you.

Instead of answering my questions, everyone would rather attack me personally because I exposed their few scattered examples of evidence as having as being politically bias or actually supporting my position.

I think that I am being baited to exchange flames, so that I will be removed from the discussion and then those skeptics won't have to answer my simple questions.

Here is some real news that is happening right now:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_re_au_an/bush

Bush has called for greater reliance on technology to combat global warming. Although early in his first term, he had insisted that the science of what causes global warming was not yet settled, more recently he has been less questioning of a link between human activity and higher global temperatures, and supportive of programs to tackle the problem.

Earlier this week, Bush said it was an "urban legend that is preposterous" for critics to suggest that his opposition to the Kyoto treaty showed a lack of environmental awareness or concern about climate change.

They aren't debating whether or not climate change is real. The are finding ways to fight it without hurting the economy too much. This is as much proof that it should take for any reasonable personal to realize that global warming is real, and even the leader of the GOP does not deny it.

[CingularDuality]

FYI, this thread surpassed the 5 word thread a while back in number of posts and views.

I wonder if we can get it to catch back up in the maturity department, though?