Those 15,000 "scientists" included political scientists and high school science teachers. Some have asked that their names be removed from the list.
There are some ideas that AGW will result in a destruction of the thermaline cylce, which will decrease the temperature in northern America and Europe. What "fact" are you posting about?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Once in a thousand years sounds like low odds to me.

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

MannieD, if you intend to rewrite climate history and deny the Cooling that took place in the Industrial Ages, would you care to let me know what changed the IPCC's mind from, what, 1995? You know, back when they accepted the cooling?

What changed? And whats next? Burning all of the paintings and stories that mentioned how cold it was during that time? (Hardly scientific evidence, but something that deserves some explaining)

You can pull an Al Gore and claim that the debate is over, but that involves a lot of denial and ignorance. There are plenty of well qualified scientists who disagree with your theory, there have been plenty of scientific conferences that reject what the IPCC says, and the majority of public debates among scientists are all won by the side I'm supporting.

So yeah, I don't understand physics, chemistry, or simple mathematics. I'm a complete lunatic, silly me, daring to actually look at the evidence. Hitler and Stalin are turning over in their graves somewhere.

Would you care to quote and reference the 1995 IPCC report that states that they accepted cooling. Because with all the misinformation you've spread, I am unwilling to accept your claim.

Science is not about debating. It's about the data and evidence. And the evidence supports AGW. Could you point me to the "plenty of scientific conferences" because again I am unwilling to take your word.
Reading comprehension problems?
Here's my quote againI never implied you needed to understand physics, chemistry and I didn't even mention mathematics. I stated that you need to understand the peer review and all the sciences use this process.
And are you willing to admit that you were wrong about aerosols?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

if this is such a crisis, then why is that CO2 levels have SOARED by 30% since 1938 but temperature has barely moved?

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

My point is that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon. Others share in this opinion. This link is interesting.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resear...l/abstract.htm

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=636_1198188716

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

I apologize if I re-state anything in this thread, as it is large and I may have missed things as I read.

Thats funny, what with all of the scientific evidence that you have presented.... wait a second.

I was wrong, it was actually the 1990 report, here's an image of the graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ann-moberg.png

And if you can't admit that Mann's Hockystick was blatantly wrong...
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

He either
1. Messed up horribly, horribly, wrong
--- In which case, what happened to the peer review process? Would you admit that the IPCC lets major flaws slip through their reports?

2. Fabricated the hockystick
--- In which case, if his rewriting of climate history was right, why did he need to lie?

Oh, and if anyone is up for a laugh, you can watch Mann blatantly lying, claiming that 1998 has been the hottest year in 1,000 years.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...12004CB098DE90

The Manhattan Declaration, The NYC Global Warming Conference... Are you saying you haven't heard about any of these?

Why do you keep calling me out on sources, shy away from my points, and not offer evidence yourself?

Like not being able to recognize sarcasm? (I actually have a very extensive Chemistry background for my age)

No, offer some proof. Aerosols are short-lived, so their effects would only reach areas close to where they were released.

Because he calls it a CYCLE.

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

You were making the claims, so you need to support them. How does your graph support your statment that the IPCC accepted cooling? Here's a summary of the IPCC first report from 1990. I don't see the word cooling anywhere. Sorry, your link gives me a list videos. If you'd care to provide a link right to his "lying", I'll take a look. If AGW was based on Mann's research you might have a point. But here's a list of other peer reviewed research which confirms Mann's evidence.
Nope. I'll check them out and get back to you.
See the link above. That should be enough to keep you busy for a while. I'm just supposed to accept statements like "During the Industrial Ages, the globe cooled, it didn't warm." without proof? And after that statement I should just believe everything you post. And So the effects of a volcanic eruption are localized?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Because Global Warming is a hoax.