You are delusional or disingenuous or flat out lying here Duece. Every time I turn on the news or any nature show all I hear is "Because of global warming, blah blah blah". I NEVER hear "Because theres no such thing as global warming , blah blah blah". The lie you hear over and over is global warming not visa versa, sheeesh I can tell you are an intelligent man, try being honest AND intelligent for a change. Even if you don't consider it to be a lie it IS what you constantly hear. It is an attempt to enact the thought that "everyones saying it so it must be true". It is a form of brainwashing and your brain is WASHED.
Really, sawyer? You don't think there's been a lot of push to get media coverage of climate science "scandals?"
Sawyer, I've shown proof of plenty of lies coming from your side of the "debate." There has been a concerted effort to cloud the issue. I'm not talking about arguments that result from poor understanding or poor logic, I'm talking about things that are
outright fabricated.
Take, for example, this graph: (since we're sortof on the topic of temperature projections)
Lord Christopher Monckton, hero of the climate skeptics, puts this graph in his presentation as proof that temperature projections are wrong, because real temperatures are below projections.
Here's the problem: He made it up. It's fake. The first red flag for you should be the fact that he draws a linear trend. Nobody predicts linear trends in temperature, because if we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere faster and faster warming would accelerate, right?
This is not the only lie Monckton tells, and this is a man who testifies before our congress as a so-called expert on climate science.
And he's lying to them.
Then you have things like "sea ice is rebounding" and "global warming stopped in 1995," things that are also provably false but go round and round the climate skeptic circles.
Remember that CERN experiment that skeptics hailed as proof it was all cosmic rays? "CERN: Cosmic rays, not CO2, drive climate" was the headline of the article paraded around here. The writer of the article (a lawyer from a libertarian think tank) talked about how this NEW STUDY from the SCIENTISTS AT CERN says etc etc... except the paper said nothing of the sort. The paper didn't say that because the writer wasn't a climatologist,
he didn't mention climate at all.
Then there's that site with all the fancy math, you know the one, with that weird spiral-notebook-looking background. It supposedly proves that man-made CO2 is only responsible for like .28% of global warming. Except the guy conveniently forgets an entire half of the carbon cycle: the part where plants absorb CO2 as they grow and remove enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.
Put it up against the so-called evidence of corruption that your side brings up: "Climategate." (and it's sequel: Climategate 2: Mostly the same emails again with the same suspicious timing) Why do you suppose it is that people don't post the emails in their entirety along with the rest of the conversation? Why do we get just one or two sentences clipped out and pasted into a Daily Mail article? Remember that line about changing peer review? How come nobody posted the whole conversation, which makes it blindingly obvious that the scientists didn't want to suppress the paper because it disagreed with them, but rather that they think it should never have been published in the first place because it was full of glaring scientific flaws?
You never did that, did you sawyer? When you read about those emails. Self-assessment question for you: did you check out the full context yourself or did you let some news article or blog interpret the emails for you?
