- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 66,840
- Reaction score
- 33,356
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ah yes, the personal blog of a co-founder of the Real Science site that has NEVER found a pro-AGW promoter they didn't just love to pieces or anybody who questioned the AGW religion who was not totally incompetent. Nope. Will need something more objective than that for your argument to be believable.
But don't bother. I'm pretty certain that anything else you post will be more AGW propaganda and you won't be able to support it with any kind of objective source. So let's just agree to disagree and move on. You're a warmer. I'm a realist who wants real evidence before I hand over my personal liberties, options, choices, and opportunities to big government. Let's let it go at that.
WTF?
I posted the objective source. I POSTED THE FREAKING ARTICLE FROM NATURE GEOSCIENCE. All you produced was your proclamation and some ten year old newsletter that you think is a great source because it says 'MIT' on the masthead. But... oh! I'm the one who isnt objective now!. LOL.
I've got a bunch of other articles that reinforce this too - although PAGES kinda trumps them all, being a synthesis of just about every proxy out there.
Now you are segue-ing into a political rant about big government.
Funny how guys like you work backwards. You dont like the conclusion, so it forces you to pretend the data doesnt exist. I guess if you dont understand science, that must seem like a rational way to think.