To ignore the overwhelming evidence requires incredible stupidity. You may be the stupidest person I have ever seen. But at least you are not intentionally lying like jerm is. You're just stupid. The denial of science in general and of AGW in particular is the best single indicator of just how fucking ignorant and deluded Republicans are.
So rather than present any realistic information to support your assertions.... all you can do is insult people. Obviously this is a typical example of the best global warming alarmists can provide. Truly sad.
Remember that you are the individual who admitted that you do not read any of the information posted by people who do not support AGW. I actually have read the information you posted and found it to be less than convincing or factual. For many years I have looked at global warming information in detail including the the raw data sets. As someone with a significant scientific and engineering background I have found there is no realistic evidence that supports the theory that man is responsible for global climate change. I have no issues debating with people who disagree with me, and I am willing to evaluate what they post. Individuals like you who simple insult people who hold difference perspectives do not add value to the conversation and also display their inability to think for themselves. So you can continue to chant your global warming 'religious' mantra because obviously all you do is recycle the same fabricated information continuously that has no factual scientific basis. MIT professor: global warming is a âreligionâ http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2davchezg
Climate change 'scientistsâ are just another pressure group Telegraph (UK) ^ | 05 Oct 2013 | Christopher Booker Posted on 10/6/2013 11:05:36 PM by neverdem Last weekend, something very odd happened. On Friday we were told that in Stockholm the UNâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) had published a report saying that it was now âextremely likelyâ that the world faces disastrous man-made climate change. But this was merely a âsummaryâ for politicians and the media of a scientific report that was not published until three days later. We then learnt that this âSummary for Policymakersâ had been argued over for days and sleepless nights by hundreds of politicians, officials and scientists, but, weirdly, that the scientific report it supposedly summarised had subsequently been amended to bring it into line with the summary. One obvious change from previous drafts was the marked downplaying of any reference to how, in recent years, global temperatures have so notably failed to rise as the IPCCâs computer models predicted. This was an uncanny replay of the first scandal to hit the IPCC back in 1996,... --snip-- Scientists who had approved the report protested that there was nothing in their text to justify this. But, to their amazement, they discovered that their agreed version had been amended to include this very phrase, citing as its authority two papers not yet published by Ben Santer, an American scientist who had also played a key part in drafting the summary. All this, and the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he âwitnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review processâ. Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995... (Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ... from freerepublic.com/tag/globalwarming