well of course, because you are a critical thinker. you need evidence before you will believe something and after all the scientists are just leftists using science to deny god: "Without a shred of verifiable and falsifiabl_e evidence to the contrary, 50% of the republican_s don't believe that President Obama was born in the US less than 50 years ago. And yet, those same people are certain that 2000 years ago someone called jesus was born in of a virgin in the Middle East, did miracles, died on the cross and resurrecte_d to heaven without a shred of verifiable and falsifiabl_e evidence to support this."
So let me get this straight. I make a post that 100% decimates your original post of global warming, and your only response to that is to change the subject and attack me personally? That, my brother, is what desperate non-thinking people do. You were better off to just ignore my post instead of making yourself look like an ass.
No it doesn't decimate anything. To point out errors made by small studies and individual scientists 140 years ago or even forty years ago about climate observations, and then say that therefore today's computer models and satellite-fed observations can be dismissed is the type of retarded thinking that we have come to expect from the flat-earthers. But if you want to show how predictive and correct science can be... Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987. Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz2DoaKZaPY
Q: How can I argue with a global warming skeptic? A: First, determine whether you're talking to a skeptic, or a denier. A genuine skeptic is someone who can be convinced by evidence, and the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming is overwhelming. (If you're dealing with a flat-earther, don't waste your breath.) http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp?gclid=CM-R1JPD-bMCFU-d4Aod7nYABw#14
Yeah, but I wonder, do the members really believe it or is it like an inside joke? Probably should not be surprised given how many people today still deny evolution and GW, and are generally dismissive of science but on the other hand believe in some self-promoting preacher dude promising eternal life died two thousand years ago and then rose but hasn't been seen since. And then you have the bigfoot believers, ghost hunters, palm readers, ancient alien fans and psychics. The birthers, 9/11 insiders, chemtrailers and those folks who think using sweetnlow in their coffee will make them lose weight. Some people find logic alone inadequate I guess.