True I remember always waking up on xmas morning with lots of snow, but it was more the freezing rain this year that killed it for me!! Literally shovelling every day. We shall see, you know what they say, Winter is going out like a Lion and coming back like a lamb, hopefully.....Which means, a really nice fall?
Right, and its pretty obvious how much profit *your* side stands to make as well
I didnt lie, I was going by the Breitbart article which was misquoted. I will admit it looks like it was a one-time workshop. However, my original point still stands, they wouldnt invite 3 well known GW skeptics if cracks werent starting to appear in the whole GW scam
So what has that to do with scientists or the IPCC?
I think from now on you need to provide sources, since they appear to be dodgy.
How do you know half the IPCC staff isnt up to their ears in carbon credit trading??
Where do you get this nonsense from, I can't read/spot a graph??!
Of course, I quote your posts all the time :biggrin1:
Correlation is not causation. Agreed.
Wrong. Try reading the IPCC's report. The IPCC says the change from 1998 to 2012 was only 0.05 degrees Celsius. That means there was no statistically significant change at all over a 15-year period.
Yet for some reason the vast majority of the scientific community believe the evidence they have. I know you blame that on a conspiracy but most rational people would understand that it means it is the best theory out there. Come up with something better and stop pretending that your attacks on scientific method have anything to do with evidence.
Do you ever wonder why people keep comparing you to a creationist? You have produced no scientific theory but are merely trying to come up with insignificant details that science couldn't explain at the time. Why do you keep suggesting that science shouldn't be allowed to benefit from constantly expanding knowledge.
Which is what the original quote, for the second time. It is not absolute.
You do understand what the phrase, 'not necessarily' means, don't you? Apparently not. Now it's perfectly clear why you can't understand what others post.
You keep trying to make it sound like there's some mysterious evidence out there that the IPCC holds and the rest of us don't know about.
Not at all. It's for the same reason he falsely accused me of changing the terms of a bet after the bet had ended. He relies on lies and propaganda because that's all he's got.
"Necessarily" wasn't in quotation marks in the post you cited. You're giving it an emphasis that isn't in the original text.
No I'm trying to tell you that you ignore the evidence when you don't like it. The scientific community accepts it.
No it's because you keep trying to tell us that the theories on global warming can't be used because there are minor unaccounted for factors just like the creationists try to say evolution is wrong because there are still unknowns.
Sure, Gore is a politician making money backing his choices, like Cheney making money off of Blackwater.
They may have, but you haven't shown any evidence either way. Its all conjecture.
I challenged both you and moviefan to read graphs that moviefan (I think) supplied. Both of you failed, first in spotting doctoring and secondly just finding a data point.Where do you get this nonsense from, I can't read/spot a graph??!
"Minor, unaccounted-for factors"?
Did you read the full paragraph on page 5 that I believe you are referring to?
I'm still trying to figure out how you concluded that we're currently living in 2001 (your own space odyssey).
