And as to what indeed the good sources report: There is plenty of information that shows that the “check for yourself” is indeed just playing pretend, as shown, many do fall for the false sense of security they get from a denier source that expects many to not bother to check for themselves.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Again, context is king, just as Snopes did not said so, when we **do **check the sources we find that indeed Headland and their minions are lying even about the “check for yourself” item, in this context it is made precisely for people like you that demonstrate a total lack of looking for good information.
[/QUOTE]
I demonstrated my desire to look for good information when repeatedly asking you for that third prediction. Did I then keep asking for it once you’d supplied it? Of course not; I’d already heard what you had to say on the subject, I didn’t disagree with you, I saw no need to keep looking. And so, likewise:
So, too, does this situation run parallel to how I stopped asking you for that third prediction: I’ve already heard what you have to say on the subject, I didn’t disagree with your answer, I see no need to keep looking. If you and I someday disagree over a different claim – possibly, as you say, over whether “Snopes did not said so” – then, sure, when that day comes, task me with finding evidence. But on this topic, in this thread, where we don’t disagree? You’re all the source I need.
And so we come to what was my main meta point, you are an idiot for just relying on a poster in a message board. And I thank you for your admission.
Check the science, what the experts say, learn to Google, and learn that most of your points were already regurgitated by deniers and already debunked many times.
A poster who posts links!
And you never learn or check them, keep digging, as I said before, I do not mind that all are finding what an incompetent at even doing goggle searchers and at identifying good sources you are. 
Ah, another false claim from you; delightful as always. You supply enough true ones – with cites! – to make it worth my while; keep on keeping on.
Just KISS already.
Uhuh, if it is false, you would not had replied with the silly “third falsification” you think I have, it is from the IPCC, so your lack of any mention of what the scientists did say demonstrates that I’m correct about you. In fact there should be no need to refer to me as we can check what the science says, and not just repeat what a bloke on the internet that is not an expert said.
Yes, I know. That came up in the thread – indeed, the post – where you relayed it, after disavowing your previous two. I clicked on the link as soon as you supplied it!
Nonsense. At best, it proves I’d never clicked on that link before you’d offered it, and says nothing about whether I read it afterward; at worst, it fails to even rule out whether I’d clicked on it before. For the record, no, I didn’t click on it until that thread – at which point I clicked on it and read avidly, despite your lie to the contrary.
But you got it right! All I had to do was ask, and you – eventually – supplied a link to the perfect cite, while agreeing that their criterion happened to be your own!
You kiss him, but be careful he will get you more than cooties.
Of course for that he needs to get out of his basement, look at the big world out there that has been pointed at for him many times before and just now he claims that that big world is worthy for him, but we know that he will ignore it once again.
Still no link or specific reference to what the scientists said, pathetic.
The Heartland Institute’s billboards are moronic. Pure stupidity, really. Kind of like predictions of catastrophic 5 to 7 (or even 10, in the not distant past) degree warming that will never come to pass (e.g., due to decreased effects from incremental CO2 and unproven positive feedback estimates that seem to get lower as unmaintainable alarmist models gets shot down).
Anyway, please carry on and resume your regularly scheduled climate-related hysteria.
Ah, another false claim. It’s quite striking, really; I put lots of time and effort into getting truthful answers from you, and you put lots of time and effort into making false claims along the way. I advise you to check your priorities – and to supply answers more readily if someone else has the good sense to ask you for a falsifiable prediction.
As reported by other studies, they agree with the conservative estimates of the IPCC. Of curse that does not stop mass murderers of logic to still claim that the IPCC is alarmist.
Not to mention that the study does depend also on the application of paleoclimate data, that is proxy reconstructions like the one Mann and others did, but never mind that logic says that deniers should then should accept the science behind the Hockey stick, they will continue to believe in more contradictions like a catholic before breakfast.
Less pathetic than a flat lie, of course; that’s your department.
Still – what, you want a “specific reference” to what they said? Their prediction would be falsified if we see less than a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise, with '07 listed as the first such starting point laid out in the link you posted. You agreed.
Meh, just repeating and expecting a different result.
Going forward, neuroman is indeed blissfully unaware that what the science reports means that many deniers myths should be dismissed as they are no longer operative as Nixon would say.
The fact that denier sites are seeing reports that are relying on Paleoclimate that gives a low sensibility, should then logically make them change their tune regarding the Hockey Stick, the medieval warm period, that climate changed in the past just like today. But they are not, sites like WUWT still malign paleoclimatologists, the fact is that they are still actively denying the most important element that allows scientists in recent studies to say that the low ends of the predictions (still not good as pointed many times before) are the most likely thing that we will see in the future.
Sounds like the Heartland Institute have spent too much time out the midday sun. Possibly in a greenhouse.
HEY!
I have two pet rats at home, and to the best of my knowledge they have never done anything as dazzlingly stupid as the Heartland ads. Leave the unjustified name-calling out of it.
Yeah, rats are better than that, and speaking of rats abandoning ship:
Yep, even Roger Pielke Jr. was shocked, and also shocked to find he was was listed as an expert that was on their list.