1. Natural Global Warming is a fact? -no its troll deception... you gave no science -our current temperature is within the natural range the earth has been cycling through for millions of years. -So however you define your terms... it will be misleading. 2. Man made global warming is far from a fact. Here you again just make shit up. a. using the best statistical methods you can not show current temps are outside natural variability. b. there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming on earth. We have complicated dynamic systems. you are using simplistic thinking. You need to think in systems backed with science. not ipcc slogans. The IPCC and others were relying on models to show that man made co2 causes warming... those models failed to predict the lack of warming we have had for the past 16 years. In short there is no science showing co2 is causing warming on earth. That is fact. 3. finally your representation of is a joke... the 97% number was a quote taken from a debunked datamined survey. David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Will you please choose one lie at a time to refute. As it is, it's a huge pile of bullshit lies. Very hard to completely debunk. You are the personification of the slimy intellectually dishonest lawyer that gets a perverse thrill by defending someone guilty as hell. You are a sick sick man to let ideology so warp your brain. You suck.
FC. Have you ever considered being polite and rational? Or are you intent on remaining the typical caricature of a global warming alarmist?
And why the fuck should stu and continue to waste our time showing you assholes facts? If someone keeps hitting a donkey over the head and the donkey never moves, at some point the guy hitting the donkey looks just as stupid.
I've run out of patience. Actually, if you were my donkey, I would have shot you by now. You idiots are trying to say black is white or up is down.