[lars]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

Which has been going on in the primary lit for the past 40+ years. Pay attention. Don't you also claim the "global cooling in the 70s" idea? Well how did scientific opinion shift? Oh maybe through open honest debate.

Speaking of honest where does oil money go? Not research, just PR. Ever wonder why?

Fail pt II. "If the 'rhetoric' [insert scientists here] don't convince me, their data is worthless." Luckily you're not the gateway of science. And please, argue for the priesthood of thousands of scientists from around the globe that share the same impenetrable conspiracy that the most profitable companies in the world can't penetrate. I'm waiting. This should be good. Are there black helicopters?

Yeah they'll be a footnote. Doesn't matter if they're right of not.

Fail pt 3: The validity of science does not rely on the gov having a cure.

You know, as with any theory from gravitation to evolution, climate change can be disproved. It can't be disproved by "there was no debate", "I'm not convinced", or "the gov can't fix it". You fail.

Green finally checks in. You seems rather angry this time. Is this starting to get you?

The proponents of man-made global warming have become so rattled by how the forecasts of their computer models are being contradicted by the data that some are rushing to modify the thesis.

Tracking satellite data for the tropical troposphere, it showed March temperatures plunging to one of their lowest points in 30 years.

On the other hand, a growing number of scientists are producing ever more evidence to show how those computer models are based on wholly inadequate data and assumptions - as is being confirmed by the behaviour of nature itself (not least the continuing non-arrival of sunspot cycle 24).