here is another source talking about the discrepancy between the satellite data and the model, but they use weasel words to make it seem like there is no real discrepancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements#Reconciliation_with_climate_models

There may be a slight bit of bias there, but at least they give facts, and it's nothing compared to the use of the word "alarmist" every single time a scientist or model is mentioned and the use of the words "far less" as descriptors without any facts given as reference.

bolshoi the global warming argument has already reached its logical conclusion on webdiplomacy.

threadID=80264

P.S. your side lost.

don't bother posting more unless you have something to add that wasn't already addressed in the above link. Please do inhale deeply of Krellin's butthurt, for if you continue in this line of argument, I will bring the same to you.

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=802645#802900

try that one instead :)

yes once a community concludes something, it's always true, independent of later research, or faulty assumptions or anything else. galileo can suck it.

I'd plus one all of those posts on the last page by you if I could, but it is locked. Has he ever gotten around to responding to you?

threadID=793738

Here's the original as well.

bolshoi the first thing you learn as a scientist is to read what others have said. I suggest you start there. As a scientist I'm not going to debate a damn thing with you until you can begin by showing me a peer reviewed journal article attempting to falsify global warming.

Anything less is not worth my time. I'm tired of letting halfwits like you think your opinion or what you heard on Glenn Beck in any way competes with the rigor demanded in fields like mine.

Thanks Nike... no Krellin muted me after that righteous asskicking I handed him. I guess I just made too much sense :P

That's great YJ.

I've held a bit of a resentment towards climate change deniers since I lost the science fair to the girl whose teacher put dust on solar panels for her because my topic was "too controversial."

@Bolshoi, with that said, I'll ask you to shut up now. Forgive me for being an asshole, but I'm getting tired of arguing with people who are clearly (or in this case *almost* certainly, it's not *quite* as bad as the math thing) wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, I guess, but your extreme gullibility has allowed you to be swayed by the right-wing political media instead of listening to hard facts, and that annoys me.

yes, you're all geniuses. thank you for the great knowledge you have all let me in on. and no hypocrisy at all in using the term denier to refer to skeptics, but criticizing the use of the term alarmist. you're all wrong, but i don't really care.

and i don't have television anymore. and you know what? when i did, and believed that "right-wing political media", i thought global warming was real. it was a math phd who told me how ridiculous the models were that started me on the path to the truth. but keep thinking that it's all a giant right-wing conspiracy, and that you don't need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt to believe that it's true.

You cared enough to tell us that you do not care and that we are wrong. I am getting mixed vibes from you, first you say you care by posting, but then you end it by saying that you do not care. Which is it? If it really is care, then find some real evidence to back up your claims. If it is no, then never ever post again.

If you do neither, then i will be forced to believe that you escaped and that we should call the mental hospital.

*sigh* would 900,000 independent articles that you may peruse at your leisure count as "beyond reasonable doubt" for you?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+warming&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp=on

So now already I've posted almost a million peer reviewed sources supporting my claim, and you have yet to show me a single one. The reason we call you a windbag nutjob and "denier" is because you are (we assume until you show otherwise) INCAPABLE of doing so because they do not EXIST.

You don't have the right to be taken seriously, because you don't have the credibility to argue with experts. Neither do I. In fact, the only difference between me and you (besides 30-40 IQ points) is that I back up my arguments with findings made by experts.

Which leaves you with 4 choices:
#1 you can do the same, and cite expert testimony to your claim.

#2 you can admit that your opinion doesn't matter next to that of experts, and by refusing to cite evidenct to back up your claim, that at the very least that you are not willing or able to debate this subject intelligently.

#3 you can maintain that your opinion is equally valid to that of experts (lol).

#4 you can run off with your tail between your legs like Krellin did.

Which one will he pick? I think I know!!!

lol Nike beat me to it, but mine was more scathing!

@nike

"first you say you care by posting, but then you end it by saying that you do not care. Which is it?"

i am posting because i like debate. do you honestly think that i am doing this to persuade you people? if i were, i would be a little more tactful in my responses rather than calling you all sheep and idiots. and i can't remember, if i haven't called you all those things yet, then i apologize that was my oversight.

@YJ: You have the number, right? Looks like we do indeed need to make the call.

Apparently this is what bolshoi consider's debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

@bolshoi: no what you are doing is not debate, if it were, you would at the very least attempt to prove (there is a difference between proving and persuading) your side. You have clearly never taken a debate class.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penguinscience.com%2Fcv%2FDGA-CV.pdf&ei=uZlJT8WiI8qgiALZrcXbDQ&usg=AFQjCNFlLr7x81fqqlX9lY6Xt-7sI01uWg

YOU MOTHERFUCKER, DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE PENGUINS? WHAT DID THOSE POOR PENGUINS EVER DO TO YOU?

who is really failing to debate? your side has conceded that the original ipcc model was complete nonsense, and even that the satellite data has contradicted assumptions in the later model. to add, those models predicted major increases in global temperatures 10-15 years ago, ice sheets melting, all kinds of other crap that the satellite data invalidates. but your side keeps going back to appeals of authority. scientists claim it's true, so it must be.

@yj: great clip. I have often been called a contrarian by my family, to which I must respond "no I am not" ;p lqtm.

Cite that, please? I haven't heard of this before.

You see, you can assert whatever you want, but if you don't make it possible for me to fact-check it, I am fully justifiied in assuming it came directly from Rush Limbaugh's fat, bloated lips into your tiny little mind.

You might be right! But I'm not going to believe a damn bit of it until you show me when somebody CREDIBLE said the same thing. Only then will I bother to search for a counterargument.

Glad you liked it, Nike. Monty Python is still to date the funniest TV I've ever seen.

And all you're doing is claiming that you're right, so you must be..?

@YJ: fine! I'll cite contrarian since you insisted. Hope APA is ok for you.
contrarian. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com.
Retrieved February 25, 2012, from <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contrarian>.
Idk why it isn't indenting properly.

Oh great I opened a can of worms.
The Nobel Peace Prize of 2012 is therefore presented to Rupert Murdoch. His Fox News Channel has stirred uncalled-for controversy into real climate change science, causing world leaders to not do anything about it. This will result in the annihilation of poor countries like Bangledash, solving the problem of illiteracy and malnutrition in the area.

btw bolshoi you should go apply for a post as Fox News anchor, I think they'd hire you based on your absolutely factual and correct views.