Well, SOME evidence would be a good start.

What evidence?

No, I'm acting like someone who has asked people over and over again to give me some evidence and they continually fail to provide any.

What "accepted" theories? What does that even mean? Usually when I see actual scientists quoted they say things like "CO2 may cause warming". MAY doesn't mean DOES.

1. I do not believe that government is necessary to fix any potential problems from pollution. In fact, government is the problem.

2. I support ending all emissions, even if it "requires" a government solution, whether MMGW is real or not. I don't think MMGW is particularly relevant to the question from a libertarian point of view. You are a partial owner of our air and you don't want it modified. That's reason enough by itself.

People in this thread have been questioning the warming--that's what the whole "statistical significance" argument is about. But, fair enough, you agree it has been warming.

Think about the question the other way: what happens when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases? We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas--and a significant one. We know this through observations is the laboratory (starting with Tyndall and Arhenius in the 1800s) We also have detailed observations of radiative transfer in the atmosphere. In addition, ice ages are much easier to explain with CO2 amplifying the warming.

So the observed warming simply fits in with what we already know about CO2. Could it be possible that something else caused the warming? Yes, though solar can be ruled out because there has been no increase in solar output since the 1950s.

That said, there are plenty of attribution studies. The IPCC chapter on attribution and detection is a good place to start (and if you think the IPCC is corrupt or whatever the cool kids say nowadays, then it at least points you to the literature on the subject.)

That's only because you have your own definition of evidence, that's distinctly different from scientists

CO2 is the most likely cause, obviously. Scientists are scientists; it's not 100% that CO2 is causing MMGW, therefore they don't say that, but it is by far the most likely cause

Any group of scientist that is joined at the hip to a political organization that is providing funding to the tune of 4 billion annually should expect intense inspection of all their data and findings. Such organizations must share to all information and means they used to arrive at their conclusions with anyone, especially skeptics. Should they feel that their knowledge is so far beyond the ability of the rest of humanity, that should not present a problem for them as they will be the only ones with the ability to understand. Should someone question their findings, they should easily be able to put them at ease.

However should evidence indicate they have manipulated their findings in order to confirm their agenda and to acquire addition funding, they should be prosecuted as common criminals.

what could go wrong???

Science is really really hard. Full professors in physics at harvard and the ias are not able to fully understand climate science. The fact that nobody can explain it to you in a manner you can understand in your free time is sort of irrelevant.

But:

lol.

Come on guys. Every single "mistake" made by these grand (government funded) scientists errors on the MMGW side. Jones Can't seem to find his data because he has a messy office. OOOOOps, yea we just said it was the warmest October ever, but we just entered all the Siberian temps for Sept. into Oct., ect , ect, ect.

If the girl at the gas station doesn't seem to bright and has a hard time making change, she is going to give too much some time and too little sometime. If she ALWAYS errors on the short side, she is scamming.

If it hasn't gotten warmer in the last 15 years, mans CO2 doesn't have a meaningful impact. How long before the warmers might question their leaders?

I'm guessing you took that out of context, but he was probably talking to somebody like that dude who claimed that only the sun causes warming or whatever nonsense he was saying. I think many third graders could point out why that is dumb even if they can't independently verify a very messy and complicated piece of 21st century science.

Why don't you just click the button to find the context? It's just Fly being Fly.

I'm on a phone and didn't see a link in your post and searching is a pain. If he meant a 3rd grader can fully understand obv he is wrong. If he meant that people are making such terrible arguments for why co2 is not causing the warming that a 3rd grader could see why they suck he is correct. Just like a third grader could explain why 20 is not a counterexample to golbachs conjecture even if they can't read a modern number theory paper.

Glad to see my fanclub is keeping up to date on all the posts I made two months ago.

Reality is still bounded by conservatives ability to understand it(while the conservative movement is in a headlong rush to eject everyone with a triple digit IQ) in this thread.

I think my favorite aspect of it is people who didn't believe in global warming before the "CRU scandal" are so happy to trumpet whatever they heard on Rush that afternoon while pretending like they were "on the fence" before, but really, there are so many.

P.S. OMG IT'S COLD IN WINTER!

LOL. It stood out as a particularly bad one.
yay fly!

LOL at picking that post as particularly bad from 2 months ago when somebody just a few hours ago said that global warming happens because "the sun gets hotter".

I was responding to your 'it's complicated' post Max with something that I thought was pretty funny because it's so childish and wrong. The sun gets hotter guy was already taken care of.

I guess you really want this to be about me somehow though.

If I wanted it to be about you I would quote random posts you made months ago. And don't you think just as a matter of fact that many 3rd graders actually do understand things better than the sun is hotter dude? Perhaps its childish to point it out but its not wrong

Which is why you go off from criticizing fly and the hotter sun guy to me for not piling on the hotter sun guy. Please.

Ikestoys- You probably do believe global warming is from the sun getting hotter. Well, there are some days where you'll argue there is no global warming.

But then it's back to something, anything besides man.


Then it's back to, OMG COLDEST DECADE EVER? SNOW IN HOUSTON?

just a quick Q, has superfreakonomics been debunked itt or something before i search it out? and for the global warming alarmists that have read it what was your take on their findings?

No, see me edit. That guy esentially proves flys point.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1203910_2.html

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...


from Washington's snowstorms, brought to you by global warming

liberals say dumb stuff tooo omg!!!11

Nice question phrasing. From what I understand everything correct in the book has been known by the experts the whole time. It turns out that it is pretty hard to study something for a few months and come up with correct things not known to experts

LOL fly's strawmen.

BTW, I do believe the sun gets hotter and warmer! And that it affects global temperatures! So does the entire scientific community, it's called solar forcing, and it's a pretty interesting topic, but w/e.

Both sides make the mistake of saying that recent weather events support their side. Stupid AGW proponents have attributed Katrina, earthquakes (lol), tsunamis (lol), severe weather and many other events without any sort of scientific standing. I eagerly await your harsh criticism of that.

I see that you have not read Fly's post in context yet.