[lzw]

You lost the argument at "notorious denier hack", which is ironic given that you're just re-asserting the same assertions, sans evidence, that every religious adherent to global warming always asserts. By the way, props for having the balls to cite an uninformed blog that, is using exposed-to-be-fraudulent-by-the-climategate-emails data to make your "Argument".

This is why actual debate is impossible-- you're not even aware of the terms of the science that are relevant to debate.

The absorbtion of CO2 and proportion in the atmosphere. The fact that the planet is getting colder, and that we're overdue for an ice age, and even the historical temperature cycles of the planet seem to be beyond your ken.

But you're great at calling people names and pretedning like you've got science on your side, while rejecting the scientific method itself.

[anthonyb]

Sans evidence? So, satellite data, weather station data, ice core data, coral reef data, tree ring data, ad infinitum - all independent measurements, all agreeing with each other, is not enough?

Let me put it another way - what evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

[lzw]

If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to.

You did not provide any evidence at all. You just linked to propaganda from an advocate of your position who made assertions, sans evidence. Yet you linking to propaganda, as far as you're concerned, allows you to claim that you provided a laundry list of evidence-- yet you never even saw the evidence you claim you presented.

This is how your position is fundamentally anti-science. You don't understand the science, you haven't seen any evidence. But a link to a propagandist, proves, in your mind, that you're on the side of "Science".

By the way, the fact is, if you actually studied that data, it doesn't actually agree. Only be selectively choosing samples can you get tree ring data, ice core data, etc to agree, and only by distorting with arbitrary factors (also known as fraud) can you get weather station data and satellite data to agree.

In fact, the claim that all this data agrees with each other is itself a bit of scientific nonsense because it presumes this data were actually measuring the same thing in the same method and were actually independant.

[anthonyb]

Ok, I give up. If you want to "engage in meaningful debate", you need to read the blog post, click through to the data and scientific papers where you disagree with what's said, and argue the details of what you disagree with.

Notice how you're completely avoiding the two questions that I've put to you. If you want me to continue to respond, or stop calling you a denier, or whatever, address either of those two questions. Here they are again:

How do you explain the correlation between surface temperature records and satellite temperature records, both of which show an increase?

or

What evidence would make you change your mind and accept that global warming is happening?

[lzw]

You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

Must be nice to not have to do any thinking at all- you just link to some propagandist and have your opponents (anyone foolish enough anyway) debate them.

I fell for that once, and the person's response? "Well, I never said that!"

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the arguments that I have put forth, ignore the science and facts I have referenced, and continue to demand that I answer questions that presuppose facts you have not presented.

Maybe you're just incapable of debate. Or you don't care- because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

The ball is in your court. You can respond, or you can continue to equivocate. I really don't care.

[jokermatt999]

Look, I'm not the guy you're arguing with, and I'll be honest and admit that I haven't looked at the data on either side enough to form a solid, evidence based opinion on AGW either way. I am not arguing for either side here. But what you're saying is ridiculous.

>You're saying that the only way to debate you is to go to some blog, do a bunch of research, construct arguments against that blog post, and then post them here?

He's asking you to look at scientific papers, the actual data on what's being argued here. This is completely reasonable when you're discussing a scientific matter. Looking at the evidence is how science is conducted.

> that presuppose facts you have not presented.

This would be the papers he linked.

> because this is a religion and the science really means nothing to you.

Look back up to your first sentence. Look back down here. Look up at that first sentence again. Do you see the inconsistency? He linked to the science. You refused to look at it.

Once again, I cannot honestly say that I know enough to make an informed opinion about this, but your arguing in this topic was horrible. You continually failed to address his links in every single post, and then complained he wasn't looking at the data.

[grammaton]

"If the planet were actually getting warmer, as CO2 goes up, over the last decade, that would go a long way towards making your theory worth listening to."

Um....you do realize that's exactly what has happened, right?

[brazzy]

Your last paragraph very aptly describes your own mode of arguing. Your're not doing your cause any good that way.