Global warming?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Coign

Just clicking through and pulling some of the 117 papers from 2010.

Computer models that predicted where the moon would be were in error. That proves the Eagle could not have land on the moon - your GCM reasoning.

If any model has an error, then it proves the entire conclusion is wrong? That only the reverse is true? Let's see. It did not predict the increased temperatures in the Andes. That proves global cooling is occurring? Why use that logic? Because your every claim is by denial; not by providing facts.

Arguing by denial says zero facts and lots of opinions. Arguing by denial is how propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News lie. Since you are an honest person, you have no problem quoting specific number from at least ten of those 117 papers that show climate change is not occurring. After all, an honest person would never cite 117 papers without first reading and grasping every one. You will quote the specific numbers in each of ten papers due to honesty. Obviously it's not difficult. You read all 117 papers before recommending them. Therefore you already know where those numbers are. Only fools and liars would recommend 117 papers because a political agenda ordered them to believe. Clearly you are honest – you would not recommend something without first studying it – would you?

Citing 117 papers recommended by extremists without reading them is only what brainwashed people do. People easily told how to think only recite rhetoric. An honest person will cite from at least ten papers, number by number, that shows no temperature increases. Honest science says you will not use arguments based in denial. Honest science says you have and will quote real data. Good. Otherwise you would have only been insulting people.