Talk:Warmist

Oh the irony. A "snarl" word used by "global warming deniers". You do realize that the so-called "deniers" accept that humans produce co2 and that co2 could be having an affect on climate? There is no verifiable data that shows exactly how much of an affect human produced co2 is having. This is called rationality, arriving at conclusions based on verifiable evidence. The people who use the term "denier" don't need evidence or the scientific method to arrive at conclusions, they're already blaming humans as 100% responsible for today's climate. - signed, a global warming denier who is paid by big oil industry and is probably the devil himself.


 * What makes the existing evidence unverifiable? Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What is verifiable doesn't show man is 100% responsible like the proponents claim. To say the climate changes solely because of humans is jumping to conclusions because the data certainly doesn't support that extraordinary claim. Another argument is the policies being pushed based on this claim swindle vast amounts of tax payers money into the hands of private corporations on the vague terminology that they're 'fighting climate change'. Yet anyone who questions whether this is appropriate is labeled a denier. It's totally backwards and an insult to the scientific method.


 * That's a lot of words. Here's the AR 4 WG 1 report . What part of 10.es.Mean Temperature isn't verifiable? Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC) PS: No one claims "man is 100% responsible." You're attacking a strawman. Hipocrite (talk)  16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) No proponents actually claim that humans are 100% responsible for climate forcings. Based on mountains of verifiable data, climatologists have pegged climate sensitivity at 3 deg. celsius +-1.5 deg. since the release of the Charney Report in 1979. While many corporations have capitalized on climate change by means of greenwashing, this does not magically invalidate the science. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)