[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.