# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/341 "2013-09-09T17:23:32Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Now of course you won’t answer, but try and spin off a different line of crap. > > Let me know how that works out for you. Very good as **YogSosoth** and many other posters that are not bigots can continue to tell you (Really, the Brazil nut and your groupies have plenty of history on that front, IMHO that is relevant as it is a feature of the ones that fall for pseudoscience, as bigotry is a demonstration of ignorance of many things) And once again, your complain of why a resource like skeptical science should not be used is asinine, [Talkorigins.org](http://Talkorigins.org) has a worse setup, but only an idiot would declare that for that reason evolution is false or that one should not use that resource. And then there is a basic idiotic contradiction, as I do not only use skeptical science but NASA and many others, your point on not linking to Skeptical Science for an specific wording is also dumb. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/342 "2013-09-09T17:27:50Z")
It’s OK nobody expects you to actually respond to all the clear points made. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/343 "2013-09-09T17:57:27Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s OK nobody expects you to actually respond to all the clear points made. Besides the actions of the moderator that put you in the pit, the context still shows that you are only doing very ignorant points and attacks. Once again, complaining about a science resource not having the specif wording you demand is like a creationist that complains that there is no “Irreducible complexity” in a biology site. Your arbitrary rules are just tailor made to clumsily impeach a well sourced and recommended site that scientists and even media giants are using. In essence your logic and ideas suck. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/344 "2013-09-09T18:34:37Z")
Man, I am going to give up trying for a laugh, this shit is better than any satire. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > the context still shows that you are only doing very ignorant points and attacks. What point is ignorant? Why do you think it’s an attack to point out a pseudo-scientific site doesn’t even have the terms it uses, defined in it’s own glossary? Why do you think that is an attack? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Once again, complaining about a science resource not having the specif wording you demand Not having the specific wording? The fucking site is called [http://www.skepticalscience.com/](http://www.skepticalscience.com/) **Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation** “rebutting **global warming** misinformation” And it doesn’t have **global warming** in it’s glossary? And you think I am ignorant? HAHAHAHAHA!! Man, that’s comedy gold. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Your arbitrary rules are just tailor made to clumsily impeach a well sourced and recommended site that scientists and even media giants are using. Seriously? Where do you get this shit? Oh yeah, you just make it up. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > In essence your logic and ideas suck. Hahahaha Yeah, it illogical to ask for a site that claims to be about “rebutting **global warming** misinformation”, and it doesn’t have global warming in the glossary, or have any sort of definition for what it means. Oh yeah, that’s a good tactic there Gigo. Don’t ever stop being you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/345 "2013-09-09T18:49:38Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > And it doesn’t have **global warming** in it’s glossary? And you think I am ignorant? HAHAHAHAHA!! Man, that’s comedy gold. > Seriously? Where do you get this shit? Oh yeah, you just make it up. Unless you can show that Barry Bickmore and Richard alley are not scientists and that The Guardian, PBS and others are not important you are just demonstratively lying to all of us. And again, only an idiot demands that when a specific wording is not there that that should impeach a reliable source. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/346 "2013-09-09T19:00:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Colibri](#): > > > > It’s neither. It’s a hypothesis with very strong support. > > Well, that applies to the causation-theory, but the **warming** is a fact. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > There are more theories now used for many subjects that support the warnings scientists are giving us regarding our use of the atmosphere as a sewer. This is the perfect time to list them > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And again, only an idiot demands that an specific wording should impeach a reliable source. Once more the site [skepticalscience.com](http://skepticalscience.com) has none of the following terms defined ‘anthropogenic climate change’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘anthropogenic global warming’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘global warming’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘theory of global warming’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘global warming theory’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘AGW theory’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘theory’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘AGW’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘skepticism’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. ‘science’ was not found in the dictionary of terms. I’m starting to think there is something wrong with the search engine. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/347 "2013-09-09T19:31:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The GigoGish gallop Lol, nice one. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t even define the terms. > > Priceless. Lol, yes. But as I mentioned earlier the warmist position needs to be ambiguous so that the warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is solid evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) if we do not follow their policy prescriptions, terrible things will happen. For example, consider the definition you proposed as an example: > [@](#): > > CO2 slows the heat exchange rate of the earth’s atmosphere, increasing CO2 levels, from human activities, is leading to an increase in global temperatures The problem with this hypothesis is that, if correct, it does not necessarily require mankind to cut CO2 emissions. It does not predict dire consequences if CO2 levels continue to increase. It does not require that all or even most of the warming over the last 50 years has been due to CO2 emissions. It’s such a mild hypothesis that you can get lots of people to agree with it. In fact, I’m pretty confident that folks like Richard Lindzen would agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/348 "2013-09-09T19:58:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’m starting to think there is something wrong with the search engine. Occam’s razor is a bitch uh? In any case that is not a rebuttal of the site, and it would be important if I only used that site for my links. And Lindzen has been found to be wrong, but the none of the sources of the brazil nut told him. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/349 "2013-09-09T20:13:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Occam’s razor is a bitch uh? Once again, you are unable to detect sarcasm. The glossary is working just fine. It just doesn’t list a lot of key words or terms Like **Radiative Forcing**. No kidding, there is no entry for **Radiative Forcing** on SS It’s sort of an important one too. [http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html](http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html) Skepticism leads me to check the validity of sites before I use them as scientific data. Skepticalscience is not scientific. Which must be a bitch for the fanboys who use it in every post. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/350 "2013-09-09T20:19:48Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once again, you are unable to detect sarcasm. It was not supposed to be, the simplest answer is that you are a fool, as I do link to other sites your criticism is really dumb. And so it is that you have to avoid the fact that the sites that are looking at pseudoscience are telling you that it is you the one that is the denier. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/351 "2013-09-09T21:49:52Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If I was going to run a blog and claim it was all about science, I would make sure scientific terms were defined. The glossary on SS is an abomination. > > That and the fact he simply doesn’t have a single page explaining the basics of either global warming or climate change. So you’re basing your objection to a site because its glossary is not up to your standards, and that the warming, the scientific journals, the hundreds of articles detailing it over the last half century are all undone, vanished! because somebody didn’t have a comprehensive list of words for you somewhere? :rolleyes: You know, I can’t find “FXMastermind” in a dictionary under the word Stupid, but that doesn’t meany you’re not ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/352 "2013-09-09T22:52:58Z")
Wow, this thread sure is a train wreck. After reading a couple of pages I don’t know how I feel about climate change, but I sure am sick of this fucking moron _FXMastermind_! Why anybody would try to engage this fuckwit is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/353 "2013-09-10T00:09:48Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Wow, this thread sure is a train wreck. After reading a couple of pages I don’t know how I feel about climate change, but I sure am sick of this fucking moron _FXMastermind_! Why anybody would try to engage this fuckwit is beyond me. Well, he is the kind of fuckwit that some who were not aware of his fuckwittery may take seriously, as we have seen, not even dropping to the grammar nazi level got him any new supporters of value. So, it is with those demonstrations of dumb assery from FX, that I consider this a good pit thread that now has not much to go for even in my educational front as FX still thinks that it is smart to [teach grandma to suck eggs.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs) BTW I think that learning what are the latest dumb ass denial tropes that they are trying to use is a good heads up for anyone that will find them in the wild. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/354 "2013-09-10T01:56:51Z")
Avoidance noted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/355 "2013-09-10T02:06:54Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Avoidance noted. [Your infamy noted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16644895&highlight=FXmastermind#post16644895) As it was this thread by the mods, keep on ranting, in the real world you are harmless where it counts. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/356 "2013-09-10T09:20:15Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > Wow, this thread sure is a train wreck. After reading a couple of pages I don’t know how I feel about climate change, but I sure am sick of this fucking moron _FXMastermind_! Why anybody would try to engage this fuckwit is beyond me. I congratulate you on your intellectual superiority, especially given the [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=631398) you started a couple years ago in which you did make pretty clear which side of the global warming debate you are on. Some people might think that you are lying when you pretend that you don’t know how you feel about climate change; that you are doing so in order to enhance your credibility and make it seem like you are criticizing **FXMastermind** from a neutral position. Some people might think you are a hypocrite given that you heavily used parody/sarcasm in your thread just like **FXMastermind** did here. Some people might think you are threadshitting for simply wandering in and asserting your conclusion without offering any evidence or argument in support. But obviously there is no need for you to worry about looking like a jackass given that you are on the Correct side of the issue. So I congratulate you again! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/357 "2013-09-10T14:12:51Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > So you’re basing your objection to a site because its glossary is not up to your standards, and that the warming, the scientific journals, the hundreds of articles detailing it over the last half century are all undone, vanished! Complete hogwash of course. Pointing out the huge flaws in a pseudo-scientific blog just means it has some flaws, nothing more. If that idiot blog was serious about education, they would list sources and clearly explain things, as would GIGOGish gallop, who avoids a straight answer like it would kill him or something. Not defining, not even having the main terms in your glossary is a classic mistake beginners suffer, along with not having an editor to save you from the mistakes every untrained writer will make. Global Warming and Climate change are not big, hard to grasp mysteries, like GIGOshitforbrains wants you to think. It just takes a little work to find the basic shit, because none of the blogs seem to know how too present a case, much less how to hyperink sources. ``` Look at the first link below. ``` > [@](#): > > **One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change** , and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) NASA gets right to the point > [@](#): > > **What is Global Warming?** > Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. NASA [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php) [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) But SS? He starts out with claims, with no sources, and then tries to say there is no debate, which is a pseudo-scientific tactic. > [@](#): > > Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say? [http://www.skepticalscience.com/](http://www.skepticalscience.com/) The real hilarious ironic fucked in the head moment? He says “What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”, and then proceeds to engage in a huge cluster fuck of non peer reviewed, non science writing, his own, with not even an editor to check him for gross errors, and logical fallacies. Like never defining global warming. Look at how the WMO starts off. > [@](#): > > The Earth’s climate is projected to change because human activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the build-up of greenhouse gases- primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These gases trap heat and create a rise in global temperature. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate\_pages/global\_warming\_e.html](http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html) While they don’t get right to it, they do make a clear statement. American Meteorological Society [http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html](http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html) NCAR isn’t as clear, but still, it’s at least scientific. National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” [http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php](http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php) I could go on and on, but if anyone believes SS is a real science site, they are most likely too stupid to learn anything new about it. here are some more links nobody will ever check. Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html) University Corporation for Atmospheric Research [http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp](http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp) Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” [http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/) [http://www.aaas.org/news/press\_room/climate\_change/](http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/) The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” [http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm](http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm) Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html) California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” [http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic\_2008.pdf](http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf) Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” [http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html](http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming” [http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457) The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change - the big picture” [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html) [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/) The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” [http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229](http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4\_syr\_spm.pdf](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” [http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html](http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html) The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” [http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications](http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications) Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” [http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media\_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx](http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx) National Geographic Magazine [http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/) Scientific American Magazine [http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change](http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/358 "2013-09-10T14:40:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Complete hogwash of course. Pointing out the huge flaws in a pseudo-scientific blog just means it has some flaws, nothing more. > > If that idiot blog was serious about education, they would list sources and clearly explain things, as would GIGOGish gallop, who avoids a straight answer like it would kill him or something. > > Not defining, not even having the main terms in your glossary is a classic mistake beginners suffer, along with not having an editor to save you from the mistakes every untrained writer will make. > > Global Warming and Climate change are not big, hard to grasp mysteries, like GIGOshitforbrains wants you to think. It just takes a little work to find the basic shit, because none of the blogs seem to know how too present a case, much less how to hyperink sources. > > ``` > Look at the first link below. > > ``` > > National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html) > > NASA gets right to the point > NASA > [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php) [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) > > But SS? He starts out with claims, with no sources, and then tries to say there is no debate, which is a pseudo-scientific tactic. > > [http://www.skepticalscience.com/](http://www.skepticalscience.com/) > > The real hilarious ironic fucked in the head moment? He says “What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?”, and then proceeds to engage in a huge cluster fuck of non peer reviewed, non science writing, his own, with not even an editor to check him for gross errors, and logical fallacies. > > Like never defining global warming. > > Look at how the WMO starts off. > World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate\_pages/global\_warming\_e.html](http://www.wmo.ch/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html) > > While they don’t get right to it, they do make a clear statement. > American Meteorological Society [http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html](http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html) > > NCAR isn’t as clear, but still, it’s at least scientific. > National Center for Atmospheric Research “How do we know Earth is warming now?” [http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php](http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php) > > I could go on and on, but if anyone believes SS is a real science site, they are most likely too stupid to learn anything new about it. > > here are some more links nobody will ever check. > > Earth System Research Laboratory - Global Monitoring Division “Climate Forcing” [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/climate.html) > > University Corporation for Atmospheric Research [http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp](http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp) > > Jet Propulsion Laboratory - California Institute of Technology “Global Climate Change” “How do we know?” [http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/) > [http://www.aaas.org/news/press\_room/climate\_change/](http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/) > > The United States Energy Information Administration “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy” [http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm](http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/greenhouse/Chapter1.htm) > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Report: Human activity fuels global warming” [http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html) > > California Institute of Technology “How We Know Global Warming is Real” “The science behind human-induced climate change” [http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic\_2008.pdf](http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf) > > Atmospheric Sciences - University of Illinois - Champaign “Evidence continues to mount that human activities are altering the Earth’s climate on a global scale.” [http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html](http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/research/01climate.html) > > Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution “Global Warming” [http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457) > > The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre “Climate change - the big picture” [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html) > > [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/) > > The UK’s Royal Society “Climate change controversies: a simple guide” [http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229](http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229) > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Based in Switzerland) “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report” [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4\_syr\_spm.pdf](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf) > > Japan Meteorological Agency “Global Warming Projection Vol.7” [http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html](http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/gwp7/index-e.html) > > The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society “Our climate has changed substantially.” “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable.” [http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications](http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications) > > Royal Society of New Zealand “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.” [http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media\_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx](http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/news/media_releases/2008/clim0708.aspx) > > National Geographic Magazine [http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/) > > Scientific American Magazine [http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change](http://www.sciam.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change) You are a complete idiot when you think that I would oppose what they say or report. And you are a false witness when you tell others that “skeptical science” does not use peer reviewed science. It is their main objective and so it is doubly idiotic that you claim it is missing on the definitions, they are assumed and do not add them as most researchers also assume their readers already know the basics. Skeptical Science is a resource to organize the peer reviewed science, stopping at only the site and not looking at the links that they use to refer to is like telling others that one should only use the Wikipedia article and not check the links. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/359 "2013-09-10T14:49:06Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > they are assumed and do not add them as most researchers also assume their readers already know the basics. Bullshit. Which seems to be your increasingly desperate tactic to defend your blog. > [@](#): > > **Good starting points for newbies** > If you’re new to the climate debate (or are of the mind that there’s no evidence for man-made global warming), a good starting point is Warming Indicators which lays out the evidence that warming is happening and the follow-up article, 10 Human Fingerprints on Climate Change which lays out the evidence that humans are the cause. More detail is available in empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming. **Contrary to what you may have heard, the case for man-made global warming doesn’t hang on models or theory** - it’s built on direct measurements of many different parts of the climate, all pointing to a single, coherent answer. [Newcomers, Start Here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html) You see once again why they never define any theory, or even explain one. The site also completely avoids explaining the mechanism by which CO2 is thought to lead to global warming. It’s right there on the newcomer page. **Contrary to what you may have heard, the case for man-made global warming doesn’t hang on theory** ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/360 "2013-09-10T14:49:26Z")
Of course the bigger point would be, Are you really that deluded that you really think that helps you? Do you realize that if I followed pseudoscience that then what you report would be bad for me? On the contrary it helps me a lot, for example the last source you quoted reports in a different article that: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demystifying-the-water-vapor-feedba](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demystifying-the-water-vapor-feedba) > [@](#): > > Observations Verify Link Between Water-Vapor Feedback and Amount of Warming by CO2 > > In 2005, Brian Soden of the University of Miami and colleagues determined, using satellite observations, that H2O concentrations in the atmosphere increased between 1982 and 2004 consistent with temperature increases over the same period. Other observational work also supported this finding. > > But the picture was muddied somewhat by a paper published last year in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology by Garth Paltridge of the Australian National University and colleagues that seemed to overturn the findings of Soden et al. They claimed to see a decrease rather than an increase in H2O vapor over the period from 1973 to 2007. However, the validity of those findings were always in question. For example, here’s what I wrote with regard to the Paltridge et al findings in a comment on the blog back in May 2009: > > “The trend they report is from high-altitude balloon measurements, so-called radiosondes. And, as any climate scientist will tell you, and in the authors’ own words: ‘radiosonde humidity measurements are notoriously unreliable and are usually dismissed out-of-hand as being unsuitable for detecting trends of water vapor in the upper troposphere.’” > > In other words, I, a non-climate skeptic, was skeptical of Paltridge et al’s conclusions. > > Giving credence to that skepticism is a new paper appearing in the Journal of Geophysical Research, in which authors Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and S.M. Davis of NOAA and the University of Boulder deterhttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16652978&posted=1#mined the H2O trend using five separate data sets: one being the data set used by Paltridge et al. and three that relied on more modern processing techniques. > > All of the data sets showed an increase in H2O except one: the one used by Paltridge et al. The authors conclude: “it is doubtful that these negative long-term specific humidity trends in the [Paltridge et al] … reanalysis are realistic.” > > It would appear that the picture surrounding the water-vapor feedback effect is a whole lot less foggy than some would have you believe. And that shows not only the brasil nut but you as the ones that just lied in Great Debates claiming that it was true that there is no support for the water vapor feedback. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=19)