"Also, about backing mine up: YOU FIRST!!!, wikipedia is not valid to me!"
You could of course have just clicked on the links Wikipedia gave you and then applied your value judgements to the original sources... You know, applied ACADEMIC standards of debate to the issue. Instead, what we actually got was a numbered list of howlingly ignorant claims; It's almost too painful to point even just ONE example out... but let's just mention the one I actually literally gasped at the sheer insane logic of; Even if you accept Mars is warming, which needless to say is just something you've read on excitingly contrarian webpages rather than truly researched for yourself, Mars not only isn't even the same size or density as Earth, because it also doesn't have a magnetosphere either, it doesn't even have much an atmosphere to speak of in the first place. At the Earth's surface, you would experience only 1% of the pressure you'd feel on Mars... the Solar Winds have blown most of the rest off into deep space. Comparisons to warming between Mars and Earth then are about as credible as trying to compare Earth to the Moon... Because hey, they are both round, right? So bound to be the same processes at work!
Actually though, the planet that's closest to Earth in nature, so much so that's actually termed our Sister Planet is...
Venus. You know, that's the planet that couldn't process it's atmospheric CO2 out into either soil or non-existant bio mass, because life didn't start there quick enough, and ended up with surface temparatures of 461 degrees C, and atmospheric pressure of 90 times that of Earth at
it's surface. Acid rain too, you'll notice...
Whilst here on Earth, our planet got lucky, and had life and a nice carbon cycle which did. Until that is, that same started dumping millions of years of fossilised Carbon back into the atmosphere again.
Can we spot the problem yet, actual Astrophysical Observers?
But there's more! Earlier I saw someone complaining they'd not seen the original IPCC data, and only the Report. Well, that's hardly surprising, as apparently the level of scientific education in the average population, and especially here on what is bascisally gaming board populated by mostly teenagers (one of whom proudly admits he's stoned, for crying out loud) is spectacularly low. Even the
definition of Science doesn't seem to be understood... You know, things like Falseability and Replicatability, all of which require that the data be published. And if you don't know
where it's been published, let alone that it has to be... Whose fault is that? It's like listening to Blind men describe the process of "Lighting A Match" being "Nothing Happens", just because they can't see where the light of the match ever was.
And the crowning glory? People claiming that a deliberate piece of controversial programming, from the same people who brought you "Wank Week", passed as actual informed debate... Yes, none other than
The
Global
Warming
Swindle
I could continue to link to actual factual refutations all night. But just click on that last link and scroll down to the pretty picture of the graph given in the above "documentary". Notice how TGWS claims that "Most of the rise in temperature occurred before 1940". And the graph seems to agree, right?
But that's because, if you look at the original NASA graph, they cut the graph off at 1980, so it couldn't show that it continues to rise after that date.
The last link, needless to say, shows you the original graph as well.
As this page provides all it's sources, natch. Honest webpages witll tend to do that. As well as providing literally minutes of enterainment; I've already got BINGO! from this thread twice over. Little hint for you all... You aren't world changing geniuses, and you aren't anti-sheeple lone visionaries for being a Global Warming Skeptic. Quite the opposite; all the smart, educated people have read the data and agree, anthropocentric global warming is occuring. All you've really done is just harvested talking points from exceptionally dishonest or just lazy and disinterested contrarians, and repeated them without once stopping to find out for yourselves. And without even a coherent reason for being so pathetically South Park Republican;
"Damn you poor people, you don't need fresh water, power, cars, and the rest of the modern luxuries"
That's right, which is why no one who has ever been concerned with the environment would ever support, let's say... the hybrid automobile. Or Wind/Solar electricty generation. Because, if they did that, there's a chance a
poor person might get them too! And those poor might sit there enjoying power and cars whilst sitting in the middle of their desertified and now devastated country. Somehow.
You ridiculous numpty.
Incidentally, what have YOU done to help the poor? Except sit on your stoned self-absorbed ass writing on a board devoted to luxuries that those self same poor you claim to be so concerned about will never see? Is somehow claiming
yes, batard, we can take it outside if you have a problem you... some form of Macho-Moronixide / Carbon Dioxide atmospheric exchange scheme? Does hyper-blovation cure parasite infestation in drinking water? Do tell us, I'm dying to know what the justification for this assumption of superiority is. Because it's obviously not wisdom.
Maybe Incredible Hulk could join to the party too 
))
