I would if I thought it would be beneficial. There's no amount of evidence that would change your mind. Even if we were 10 years into the next nice age, people like you would turn it around and demand action because after all, it must be our fault.

Then I guess Warmists are a bunch of eugenicists.  Death to people is their motto. (Check the Comments, Clonmac cant find them)

And let us not forget the shameless link between warmists and big oil.

Or perhaps the fact that real scientists are not happy with the non-science of the group. 

So where does that leave us?  A bunch of blogs for MF, and documented malfeasance for his sources.  Guess those smokes don't look so bad any more, considering that the sources of the criticism of the AGW are not part of MF's cabal.  Or is the IOP, RSoC and EE just pawns of big oil and tobacco?

Uh, no you did not.  You did not take into account the albedo effect.  You did provide a lot of tobacco smoke and oil (that proved nothing other than you do not know science or proof).

I'd like to see your evidence too.  Mumble provides sheets and sheets of data and all you do is bleat. 

As he pointed out he's not talking to the pure denialists, he's talking to the undecided, or to the skeptics who actually think about the information they are given.  Given that - what information can you give beyond your incredibly valuable opinion? 

Where are your peer-reviewed articles?  I'm sure we'd all like to see them.

@Dr. Guy - Keep on trucking, brother 

Ke5trel, you win. I have no evidence. The only credible research papers nowadays are written by scientists with the stamp of approval from Algore. In fact, we should all bend over and gratefully take it in the name of embracing the stone age. Is it too late for me to cross over to your side and become one of the overlords?

You get dumber by the post. You're talking about eugenics here, yet you're previous tirade in the other post about killing ALL humans to solve the problem has nothing to do with eugenics. You don't even know what you're talking about and what I was talking about.

To prove my point, when you posted all those links and I said that I didn't see any of the comments you were talking about, that still stands true for the previous topic. Now you come in here and say that "Clonmac couldn't find them" and you go ahead and post a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ARTICLE! ...Idiot. So you go ahead and claim that I can't find something before I even get a chance to look...you're awesome dude.

Second, eugenics has nothing to do with anything here. Not a single comment in your posted article had to do with eugenics. Eugenics is simply selective breeding in order to enhance a species genetically. That has nothing to do with population control which was mentioned a few times in the post. Furthermore, population control has nothing to do with killing ALL humans as was talked about by you and me in the previous AGW post. So if those were the types of Scientific American comments you were referring to in the other post, then you were sorely mistaken.

I've still not seen you post a link to any comment where someone said we should kill all humans. To sum up...you're a moron, thank you for posting. My patience is gone with you.

YAY I IS THE WINNER!

Come back and play again when you can bring some actual scientists to the table    

What does an article about "Man convicted for killing and eating China's last Indochinese tiger" have to do with AGW?

And if you want to reference the comments you'll have to do a bit better than that, there are 25 *pages* of comments and you've given no hint as to what it is you're referencing. I'm certainly not doing your work for you.

This is precisely what being a denialist is. You're not making any kind of logical case, you're merely trying to confuse with useless garbage.

As far as eugenics that's something far more likely to be associated with an Ayn Rand sycophant such as yourself.

Climate change – research suggests it is not a swindle

Newly identified side to global warming

If you still believe that either the IOP or the RSoC deny AGW please by all means show us some evidence.

In a previous discussion like this Brad asked a similar question. What would it take for me to consider that AGW was not true? At that point I made the statement which I still stand behind which is that I expect each decade to be warmer than the previous decade and that each future decade would also include at least one year (if not more) that was the warmest year to date. And the point at which that becomes untrue is the point at which I would have to reconsider my position.

After defining what kind of evidence it would take for me to reexamine my position on AGW I asked the comparable question in return. What would it take for you to rethink *your* position?

The silence was deafening in response.

The thing is that deniers have already denied 30 years of documented warming that has been statisically proven to be beyond that of natural variation. Give that you can deny 30 years of evidence it shouldn't be surprising if you're able to deny another 30 years.

But go ahead and surprise me. What level of warming do you insist upon before you consider that *you* might be wrong?

No one but a total idiot would believe that the existence of AGW requires that every single year be hotter than each previous year. There are many other cycles going on that affect global temperature that are all moving quasi-independently. There's the 11 year sunspot cycle that I've already referenced along with other even longer solar cycles, there's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) just to name a few.

But looking at this chart from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/) you can see that on a decade over decade basis we have had increased warming for the last 60 years. Anyone that can look at this chart and say that we aren't warming truly fits the definition of "denier".

Clonmac

Check the links again idiot.  That was one of them. I did not post them all this time, as I was posting them in line and PICKED ONE.  You admitted you did not read them.  Now who is the idiot?  Idiot.

And I used the term this time of eugenics because it is simpler to use that.  The last time, I was responding to someone else's statement, so I did not use the term, instead said that some wanted that.  So my advice to you (since you cant read and cant follow links) is to GET AN EDUCATION.  Cause you sure are showing everyone how stupid and juvenile you are.

I see where you are resorting to name calling again.  You have lost the argument.  Or is it that you really do agree with the eugenicists?  Oh, but wait!

As I said in the comment, read the comments!  now who is being stupid?  Sorry, there are not 25 pages of them (I picked a short one), there are 25 comments!  What an idiot!  I was referencing your stupidity!  Thanks for proving it!

hey genius, show me where I said they did.  Please try to READ the written word.  The slam was not on whether AGW is right or wrong, it was on the fact that the scientists are NOT that!  And I linked to the reports, you just uttered a stupid statement - no documentation to refute what I posted.

You are so afraid that someone will show you the stupidity of your position, you lash out like a wounded animal in all directions, without knowing who is friend or foe.  And you come off looking like an idiot.  Who knows nothing of science or proof.

Thanks for the non-sequitur links and statements.  NOT.

There he goes again...

Next he'll "debunk" the medieval warming period, the holocene maximum, the three degree spike a few centuries back, etcetera etcetera, all while pretending thirty years of expected cyclical warming and high solar output proves it's caused by CO2 now.

How much you want to bet Al Gore is or was at one point directly linked to several of the organizations on the "fraud" part of that list.  So many people on the warmist side tend to forget how well connected Gore was to Big Corn.  I don't know what his connections are to corn now-a-days though.  I am guessing if he isn't getting any money from them he isn't backing any corn-based biofuels as a part to Global Warming solutions. 

I don't really have a whole lot to say about any of the previous debates in here except to give my own opinion, and that is that I suppose you may as lump me in as a skeptic.  Oh, I am a skeptic alright, but not just of Global Warming, but the entire debate.  I am on the fence as to how much man has to do with the overall effects of climate change.  Is it 100%?  Is it way less?  Don't know, but certainly man does have an impact on it.  I am all for getting off of fossil fuels if simply to get rid of things other than CO2- i.e. carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, heavy metals, smog, acid rain, etc.  Plus energy effeciency (cleaner, cheaper, reusable, alternatives, etc.) just makes good business sense especially in in the more urbanized areas of the world.  With all that said, I still remain skeptical, because much of the debate seems not about science but about economics, and cap and trade or carbon ponzi schemes and whatever else has been bandied about by the world leaders stinks to high heaven for many reasons that I won't get into.  But, I think the biggest reason I remain skeptical of either side of the debate (alarmist vs denier- calling them that to simplify my post) because of the amount of partisan politics.  I think it's a shame that climate science has been politicized to near death.  I honestly think it cheapens the science and, for me, makes me incredibly wary of so-called experts... of either side.

Oh, this is truly priceless, lol. How about you check the links again. Here, I'll even repost all of them, followed by me calling you an idiot once more. I admitted I didn't read ALL of them yes. But, why read all of them when after reading two of them I found your point completely lacking in the ones I DID read. I'm not going to have a moron like you provide hours of pointless work.

So you use the term eugenics because it is simpler even though completely unrelated? That makes no sense at all.

I've still yet to see you point to a comment where someone wanted to KILL ALL humans like you claimed. How about you link directly to the EXACT comment where someone said that an then you can call me moronic. Instead you link to tons of articles that have tons and tons of comments in them and tell us to sort through them. If you want to make a point about something, then you should be the one to put the work into making that point for yourself. In the meantime you're just blowing smoke out your ass.

Here are the links from the previous thread from post #1191:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-birth-control-the-answer-to-envi-2009-09-23

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-china-india-climate-accord&sc=DD_20091221

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-of-climate-negotiations&posted=1&posted=1

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=combating-climate-change-by-observi-2009-12-30

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-policy-analysis-goals-long-mid-term

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=negating-climategate

Here is the link you posted in this thread:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=man-convicted-for-killing-and-eatin-2009-12-25&ec=su_lasttiger

Now, which of any of those links are the same....I can find a few first graders to answer that if you can't.

The answer is none! None of those links are the same! You posted a completely new article in this thread.

Whether global warming is real or not rest assured that the prophet al gore will never ever everr give up his private jet.  We are just pathetic underlings to be smashed under the bootheels of the powerful government, corporation, whatever.  Whatever rules are pushed on us will never apply to the elite.  ever.

People for global warming pointed to the 2005 hurricane season and mild winter as evidence of man made global warming.

The same people say that you cant use the year 2009, with its cold and snowy winters and mild hurricane season to say global warming doesn't exist.

WTF?  So you guys can just pick and choose years to prove your theory?

The definition that you two have given for 'denialists' has moved to 'anybody who disagrees with you'.  Mumbles is only preeching to the choir, only talking to people who agree with him. Don't bullshit people, esp. with what happened in this topic and the last global warming debate.

This is the way all AGW advocates do.  You'll notice people like Mumbles jumping on something to say it's man made global warming if temps are higher then usual, then say 'oh well temps don't always increase' if it's lower then usual.

Go thru this topic itself and you'll find immediate examples of global warming cherry picking.  Mumbles will complain about 'denialists' all he/she/it wants to, but at the end of the day Mumbles will deny anything against Mumbles agenda.

People like this are snake oil salesmen, plain and simple.

The reason why people say this is because winter is a season and regional and does not account for the temperatures over an annual period and global respect. 2009 was still a very warm year overall. Depending on how the 2010 summer goes, then that it could more than make up for any cold winter we had.

2005 on the other hand, when people talk about the temperatures for that year, they're talking about the temperatures as a whole, not just about its mild winter. It had a hot summer and a mild winter. If 2009 turned out to be a cold/mild year overall, then the cold winter argument would hold more value. So you have to take the summers along with the winters.

A single year in any direction proves nothing. However 60 years in one direction does seem to indicate a trend.

The premise of the OP was an expression of incredulity that last January could be the warmest on record when the UK (about 6% of the earth's surface) was cold.

My replies have been simply to point out that is not true. Nowhere have I said that simply because this January (and this February as well) have been the warmest in the satellite record does that therefore *prove* AGW. It is most certainly *one* piece of evidence among many hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence of AGW but never have I claimed that this one fact in and of itself solely proves AGW.

To me the *fact* that the 2000's were warmer than the 1990's which in turn were warmer than the 80's which in turn were warmer than the 70's which in turn were warmer than the 60's which in turn were warmer than the 50's is more convincing. However to me even that is not *proof*. Proof is something I am not qualified to judge, however I do accept as *proof* the consensus of both the credentialed, experienced climate scientists in the field and the peer reviewed scientific journal record. *That* is what I accept as proof. Everything else is merely evidence. Certainly mountains and mountains of evidence, but evidence without the education and experience to judge it, is immaterial.

That's the difference between me and any of these so called "skeptics". I make no extraordinary claim to any level of superior knowledge in the field of climatology. My claim is very simple. I happen to believe the claims made by the best climate scientists on the planet. Just as I will defer to the opinion of the best physicists on the planet when it comes to physics or the opinion of the best chemists on the planet when it comes to chemistry and so on. Hardly an extraordinary belief on my part.

But Dr. Guy and psychoak are claiming that they know better than the best climate scientists on the planet. And they are making that claim with absolutely no proof whatsoever. In fact their position is that *I* am required to *prove* my position whereas their position requires no proof.

So you're OK with believing that some random asshole on the internet knows more than the acknowledged experts in the field simply because they say so and you call me a snake oil salesman? You are the one buying the load of shit here.

He specifically lists the subject he's commenting on.  Severe hurricanes(not that they were) were blamed on global warming, mild winters were blamed on global warming.  It's fairly obvious where he's going with his commentary.  If the weather condition is because of global warming, then the lack of that condition poses a problem to the thesis.

Now now, give him the benefit of the doubt and go with something like stupid or suckers.  You can also use my current favorite, fucking retards.  Moron pc freaks will jump up your ass though.

When some random nobody on the internet claims that they know more about string theory than Ed Whitten then I immediately know that they're full of shit.