Thread: 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since records began

Man-made global warming is a religion, and it's unwise to argue with people over their religion.

Awww so cute Conservatives that think they understand science.

They've got their little plastic Tonka hard hats on and colored chalk for their blackboard.

Its like a kid with a steering wheel accessory for their car seat, they think they're driving the car.

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Belief in natural climate change instead of the man made global warming fairy tale does not make one a climate change denier.

Well over 90% of climatologists say ACC is real. Yes, climate change can occur naturally, but the rate of recent climate change is much higher than what has occurred naturally in the past.

Originally Posted by Verax

Awww so cute Conservatives that think they understand science.

They've got their little plastic Tonka hard hats on and colored chalk for their blackboard.

Its like a kid with a steering wheel accessory for their car seat, they think they're driving the car.

Ah yes, the new liberal science. To hell with the Scientific Method, and all that proof crap. Just go with what gets uneducated people scared and to the polls.

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by Redress

The NYT does not say that. Might want to go read your own source.

The year since there has been no significant warming is not 1998. It's actually 1995. Phil Jones admitted this.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 (article was written in 2010) years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Your editorial is hardly convincing. I prefer facts.

You're just dismissive of facts that reject your global warming religious dogma

Nobody is trying to convince you of anything. You're way to fanatic to bother with attempting that.

Originally Posted by Erod

Ah yes, the new liberal science. To hell with the Scientific Method, and all that proof crap. Just go with what gets uneducated people scared and to the polls.

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

Ahh and here we go. Little Mister Big Tonka Truck thinks he's on to something big. He points to an article published by the WSL, a group whose purpose is to make money any way they can and run over anyone who gets in their way, no conflict there right? To a person with a functioning brain this would be a red flag but not to Mister Big Tonka Truck. This is the best he can come up with to "prove" his position.

Next up you could take a look at the "scientists" who approve of this article in the OPINION section of a website that you can't trust in the first place. You would see that they are all quacks. One of them is a marketer, one of them doesn't even properly understand the most basic and fundamental experiments in the history of ****ing science, god damned gravity and what would go on to become Newton's second law of motion. He embarrassed himself in front of children and still didn't understand he was wrong, a true conservative role model right there.

I can only imagine the retardation I would find in the other "scientists" but I got bored of researching this garbage.

Originally Posted by Homer.

Well over 90% of climatologists say ACC is real. Yes, climate change can occur naturally, but the rate of recent climate change is much higher than what has occurred naturally in the past.

that so called survey was done over 10 years ago and some of those same climatologists said Florida would be underwater by now

Can someone tell me why I should care about AGW vs Natural Climate Change? If either of them is the correct theory, or neither of them, why does it matter to me?