Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
As I’ve seen it …
That’s the problem: it’s not about how you see it, or indeed how I see it or anyone else sees it. The data show what they show, and more data are gathered which either support the hypothesis proposed on the basis of the initial data, or don’t. Unless you have, or can find, equally rigorously researched data which contradict that hypothesis, that’s all there is to it. There’s no bias, no agenda, no Russell Brand: not at the research stage, anyway. If it’s published in a reputable scientific journal, and no evidence can (yet) be found to contradict it, then it’s as near to unvarnished plain truth as it can be.
Which part of there is no data,there’s only a dodgy theory,based on a flawed erroneous observation of the situation on Venus,that was then applied here,thereby increasing the inherent errors contained in the original observations even more,don’t you understand.
Everything else related to the whole bs issue ( from the believers’ point of view ) is just a matter of mass hysteria and auto suggestion not so called ‘data’ because,as I’ve said,and as proved by your own answers,being that you’re obviously one of those believers,you can’t provide a simple clear mathematical link which would be an essential component in any of the so called data.IE you believe in something which you say is based on supposed ‘data’ but when asked you can’t identify exactly what that so called ‘data’ is that has led you to your personal belief in it. 
Which is a reasonable description of every believer in the whole bs theory being that it’s nothing more than something dreamt up in the imagination of a ‘scientist’ under the influence of a narcotic substance.In which case the surprising thing is that the theory in question wasn’t given the same credibility as it would have been if it had been written by Bob Marley with a bit of help from the Wailers. 
foxnews.com/opinion/2012/02/ … -delusion/
Carryfast:
Which part of there is no data,there’s only a dodgy theory,based on a flawed erroneous observation of the situation on Venus,that was then applied here,thereby increasing the inherent errors contained in the original observations even more,don’t you understand.
If you’re not going to even look at all the links I’ve posted, there’s really not much I can do. I can come to your house and hold your hand while you read them, moving your lips as you do so and occasionally pausing to ask a grown up for help with the longer words, but I have better things to do.
Global warming -- the great delusion | Fox News
Fox News. Not a scientific journal. It’s ironic that you’re castigating me for not posting any data, yet seem content to rely on YouTube clips and openly biased “news” sites to attempt to further your own cause. I should have expected nothing less; I’ve found that most of the anti-global warming lobby are happy enough to grab desperately with both hands at, and believe unquestioningly in, anything which appears to support their untenable hypothesis, as there are virtually no data which support it. Besides, it’d do you no harm to educate yourself by reading up on the other side of the argument … as Aristotle said, it’s the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. It’s certainly not the mark of an educated mind to dismiss anything you disagree with as “lefty bs” and start spouting ■■■■■■■■ about Russell Brand.
Rhythm Thief:
Carryfast:
Which part of there is no data,there’s only a dodgy theory,based on a flawed erroneous observation of the situation on Venus,that was then applied here,thereby increasing the inherent errors contained in the original observations even more,don’t you understand.
If you’re not going to even look at all the links I’ve posted, there’s really not much I can do. I can come to your house and hold your hand while you read them, moving your lips as you do so and occasionally pausing to ask a grown up for help with the longer words, but I have better things to do.
Global warming -- the great delusion | Fox News
Fox News. Not a scientific journal. It’s ironic that you’re castigating me for not posting any data, yet seem content to rely on YouTube clips and openly biased “news” sites to attempt to further your own cause. I should have expected nothing less; I’ve found that most of the anti-global warming lobby are happy enough to grab desperately with both hands at, and believe unquestioningly in, anything which appears to support their untenable hypothesis, as there are virtually no data which support it. Besides, it’d do you no harm to educate yourself by reading up on the other side of the argument … as Aristotle said, it’s the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. It’s certainly not the mark of an educated mind to dismiss anything you disagree with as “lefty bs” and start spouting ■■■■■■■■ about Russell Brand.
No surprise that you selectively choose to point out scientific backing in the case of your bs cause but then choose to ignore it in the case of any opposing scientific backing which is actually contained in,and the subject of,that news report.
Being a typical believer you’re confusing an argument with two opposing sides as bias when you’re met by the better side.In this case Fox news actually being less biased than your lot.The difference being that your lot’s argument is based on bs and the removal of freedom to disagree based on Socialist dogma while Fox news is just doing it’s job of providing the true facts regardless of that political pressure.
Believing unquestionably doesn’t come much more unquestioning than the raving mass hysteria and socialist ideology of the believers as I’ve proved with the call of the ‘greens’ to have any opposing views to their bs ideology gagged and removed.Not surprisingly Fox news hasn’t called for such typical communist tactics which is the most important issue in the whole argument.
As for me which part of,I’ve heard it all,since the 1970’s when Sagan and his raving followers first dream’t up the idea and I rejected such bs at that point in time,don’t you understand.
Can we please cut the eco ■■■■■■■■ out, this thread was meant to be about a driver going into flood water.
Muckaway:
Can we please cut the eco ■■■■■■■■ out, this thread was meant to be about a driver going into flood water.
It’s obvious that anything concerning the recent floods will be turned into a global warming issue by all concerned from the news to the public so just live with it and join in the argument on whichever side you believe. 
As for the driver going into the floods who cares just like the eco argument the river flooding the place and people driving through the results is nothing new in the area from the days of horse and carts to trucks.