Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can fool some of the people some of the time...
That's a tabloid. Why do you consider yourself informed? Did you even bother to see if the people they claim to be quoting agree with your tabloid's article?
Wow. Another AGWer. Are you all allergic to actual scientific evidence, or what?
You quote tabloids. To you, as to all denialists, "science" means believing anything that parrots right-wing lies and automatically declaring anything that contradicts them to be fraud. I can tell by the way you try to pass off tabloid articles as "actual scientific evidence".
Although climate models have been predicting increasing average global temperatures over the next century or so, the past decade has not shown as much warming as most scientists had expected. The year 2012 was no warmer than 2002.The IPCC draft report acknowledges a "global warming hiatus," according to media reports.
Take your failed attack the messenger buffoonery elsewhere.
Why should I take their word for what the IPCC says? They've already shown they're willing to lie about such things when they deliberately misrepresent the Met Office.
I love that "attack the messenger" garbage. Really, it's just "wahhh, you won't pretend the tabloids and blogs I like are just like real science!" Well, suck it up. I've said this several times, but I'm willing to continue to make the point; if it isn't good enough for a doctoral thesis, it isn't good enough for me. I don't care about your low academic standards, and I don't care if you complain about my high ones.
Why should I take their word for what the IPCC says? They've already shown they're willing to lie about such things when they deliberately misrepresent the Met Office.
NatGeo and the BBC misrepresent the Met Office? Are you sure about that?
Your worthless tabloid does. I am sure about that.
This worthless right-wing talking point has been brought up here before. And, as was pointed out before, rebounding from a record minimum is not "recovery", it's regression toward the mean. Sort of like the lie about how temperatures aren't rising because 1998 was really hot, only inverted. Same worthless argument, though. No wonder it was in a tabloid and not in anything worth taking seriously.
Your worthless tabloid does. I am sure about that.
Worthless? It concurs with NatGeo and the BBC. There's been a 10+ year trend of COOLING. Other countries are demanding answers from the IPCC about why their predictive models failed so spectacularly, and fewer people believe the AGW BS than ever.
That's what happens when one tries to pull 'attack the messenger' buffoonery. One makes a colossal fool of oneself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
