Come back with some serious, peer-reviewed material before you play with the big boys. Not Michael Moorish faux-documentaries and a no-name news article.

Sorry, a circumstantial ad homenim attack isn't a suitable substitute for either debate or rebuttal. You can either refute the information in its entirety that I gave you or refute specific portions. If you find that you are unable to muster more than a dis-satisfaction with the source, then alas, you have lost the debate.

As to your suggestion that you are one of the "big boys", I laugh in your face.

Global warming isn't about local temperature. Of course it's still cold in some places; get this, it's something like -50 Celsius in Antarctica.

Instead, global warming is about average temperature, and the last two decades have been the hottest on record.

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

As to your comment, I fart in your general direction. (If you don't understand that, go out and rent Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Now. I'm not even joking.)

__________________
Thoughts on the World
Thoughts on Global Warming
The International Relations Blog
worldthoughts(at)gmail(dot)com

Nonsense.

1. Your claims have already been dealt with and refuted. You simply don't know how to click the "search" function.

2. You source isn't credible. It's a faux-documentary that has already been discredited dozens of times, which you are too lazy (or dishonest) to realize. This relates to item 1.

3. Consequently, you're actions are no different from Creationist idiots who cite answersingenesis claiming thermodynamics disproves Evolution. There's no reason to continually disprove sources and retarded claims for every new bozo who comes through the door, like you. Do a search. Find your answer. If you have something new to contribute, do so or shut up.

4. Until you have located a peer-reviewed, scientific source that corroborates your claims (and you can't, since they are literally nonsense), your claims can sufficiently be dismissed given the lack of that source and the aforementioned previous refutations of your claims.


Note* As I mentioned, the documentary takes scientists out of context and actually pulls facts out of thin air. It's completely false on all accounts. Given you already dismiss the IPCC and all other sources (except for your half-cocked "documentary," it's evident you aren't amenable to reason anyway. In fact, anyone who ignores the bulk of peer reviewed science in favour of a private documentary is blooming idiot; therefore, there's no need to debate with you seriously any more than I would respectfully debate a Christian Fundamentalist. When you reach your level of ignorance, it's pointless trying trying to educate you.


1. Global Temperatures aren't increasing: LIE.
2. IPCC is unreliable: LIE
3. The Sun is the cause of current global warming: LIE

These lies just keep getting recycled by people like you.

Two lies right there which accompany the bone-headed statement about it being cold outside, therefore, global warming is false. Try again.

An interesting, credible source, unlike your "documentary."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...arming.html#Q3


Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html

You're now blinded by science! Shazam! You disappear in a cloud of Pwned!

"But mr. the scientists are lyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyying!": a foreseen rebuttal.

If that were the case, then it would, in fact, be quite easy for you to refute any, or all of the source I provided. I note that you haven't and in lieu of doing so, made an impotent attack on me. CLearly, you are unable.

It is clear, that you didn't even look at what I provided as it was in no way a documentary, either faux or otherwise. And since you clearly didn't look at it, your suggestion that "it" has been discredited "dozens of times" is hogwash. Either you can refute it in its entirety or you can not. So far, it appears that you can not. I did take the time to look for some of the "debunking" you suggest happened, the best I could find was a personal web site done by a character named "durango bill" who doesn't even claim to be educated. The sources that supposedly "debunked" anything go downhill from there.

It was interesting that you referenced GISS data which, when corrected, now puts the warmest year back in the 1930's and 4 of the top ten warmest years on record in the 1930's. Then there is the ever growing scandal with regard to the temperature gathering itself. We are learning that the bulk of temperature readings are reported by volunteer stations, usually no more than a thermometer inside a small wooden hut or below a roof overhang. Not only did most of the sites fail to meet the NCDC's requirements, but encroaching development had put many in ridiculously unsuitable locations -- on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot chimneys and above outdoor grills.



Once again, an attack on me doesn't constitute any sort of rebuttal. You either can refute the information or you can not. To date, you have not.

I saw that you noted that. However, I did not link to a documentary so clearly, you don't know what information is held there.

In the end, your complete failure to rebutt anything contained in the links I provided must mean that you are unable.

I do have a question for those of you who have drunk the fool-aid and really do believe the sky is falling. The earth has been warming since the glaciers started melting back from most of the northern hemisphere some 14,000 years ago. Exactly what do you find so surprising about the fact that a warming trend might continue, considering the fact that history tells us that is exactly what happens? It gets warmer, and it gets cooler. It is neither warmer now than history shows us that it has been, nor cooler than history shows us that it has been and the trend is neither faster nor slower than historical trends. Exactly where do you find crisis in natural cycles?

No actual rebuttal? Entirely unsurprising.

Well your not doing your own research your just buying what NASA says. I am setting up for a white Christmas in Georgia. Sounds like global warming to me. :P