I guess you read no farther than the quoted statement, as I clearly did or was being omnipotent in the rest of my response.

And you have yet to prove anything.  "You Say", and that is it.  You have provided NO PROOF, just a bunch of your opinion. 

As I said, once you attempt to provide your proof, I will refute it.

And childish name calling?  I have not called you any names that you have not demonstrated to be true by your juvenile taunts. 

Go ahead and give me another one of your classic "you are an asshole" comments.

As I said, and you just proved again:

The reason that I use Wiki and not the actual reports is because downloading the actual reports is a pain in the fucking ass, pardon my french.

How do you have the patience? So OK. I bit the bullet and started downloading. First I downloaded the AR4 Synthesis Report. 52 pages and they provide a link to down load the entire file, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

OK so far so good. Next the first of 3 "Working Group" reports. This time not so lucky. 996 pages consisting of at a minimum of 25 downloads. OMFG! I drew the line at the figures however, there are two download pages consisting of figures only. The first one is http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/Ch10/Ch10_indiv-maps.html and consists of 164 individual files. No fucking way I'm going to download that. The second one is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis_figures.htm and and I can't even begine to count how many individual files are on that page.

So I guess I'll go through the effort of pasting the 26 downloads from just the Working Group 1 report into a single pdf and then I move on to WG2 and WG3.

So is there an easier way to do this or what?

I concur with that sentiment.  Keep it dear & abide by it.

Kettle Pot.

Don't play his juvenile game.  he likes to call people names and then accuse them of doing the same.  He is just lazy and as I have demonstrated, ignorant of the subject.  He wont (or more likely can't) prove any of his allegations when challenged on them.

I don’t have to go any further than this to have a reason not to take you seriously, you arrogantly post the same grossly inaccurate crap over and over again, this is the favorite tactic of the dogmatic. First you say the IPPC report predicts 0.006° then you say “I am in error, using only my memory I wrote 0.006°C when in reality it is 0.05°C if you want the full story look up my articles on global warming over the last two years they are a bit more accurate than Wiki”, a 5th grader could see the 0.05°C was the range of the prediction not the prediction of 0.64°C and 0.69°C.

However you already knew this, you acknowledged this error almost 2 years ago but here you are again flippantly throwing out whatever number that makes your case.

https://forums.politicalmachine.com/317534

Lauriekk, “By the way, you've misinterpreted that section. It says that the average temperature over the period 2011 to 2030 will be 0.64 to 0.69 degrees warmer than the average temperature over 1980 to 1999. The 0.05 is the range in the predictions.”

Paladin77, “You are correct, thank you for catching it. So we are looking at 7 tenths of a degree rise between 2011 and 2030 plus or minus .05th of a degree. Okay.”

And you have the cognitive dissonance to say trust me I have the facts and these scientist with their manipulated data are the idiots. 

This is classic Illusion of Superiority.

Why should he have to do all the heavy lifting? It's not hard to learn how to post a link - if you can learn how to type on a keyboard and move the cursor with the mouse you should be capable of learning how to post a link.

It's evidence and can therefore be used to help back up a claim (subject to the reliability etc. of the link), and so posting such a link is much better than no link at all.

Without any outside evidence to back up your arguments, you're limited to either making unprovable claims which for all we know are made up on the spot with nothing to base them on, or arguing based on the evidence others have provided and finding flaws in that (which means although you might manage to discredit an opposing argument you'll be unlikely to be able to prove your own).

Take the OP as an example - without a link to what Dr Jones actually said who's to say he really did say that? There have been plenty of people who have mis-stated what he's said (e.g. saying that he said there hasn't been any warming since 1995), and so you could've read a false interpretation of what he said, posted it here as truth, and without a link there's nothing to back up your claim, or someone's counter-claim that he actually said there was global warming in the period. With a link to the actual statement he made though everyone can see what he said and whether it does back up the claim made.

Well you can do what I did and look it up.

Look your obviously hold a fascination for science and I respect that, however you’ve let your conformational biases completely control your methods and conclusions. Your doing exactly what you rightly say would invalidate the work of other scientists. A decimal point in science is a big deal, it’s a mathematical straw man that almost always invalidates any conclusions. It’s more than enough to have an otherwise well structured and accurate paper be rejected for peer review and it wouldn't be just “nit picking” to do so. Sometimes a mistake is made and when corrected doesn’t invalidate the conclusion however the mistake must still be corrected. Don’t you agree? 

Mistakes are made, however compounding the error or just ignoring it is counter productive to say the least and people that make these mistakes and then refuse to correct them do not qualify as “dissenters being silenced”. You're not just making errors you consistently fabricate data to support your conclusion, (your “errors” are always in favor of your position) and when your caught you condescendingly act as if it has no bearing on your conclusions and others are stupid for not getting your invalidated point.

I’m not arguing here for or against AGW only for critical thinking and the scientific method, please stop butchering it and make an effort to recognize your own conformational biases. Doing so is not easy scientist struggle with it all the time but at least they’re aware of how detrimental it can to the advancement of science. The peer review process while not beyond CB’s influence in the short term will eventually weed it out, that’s why I trust it.

falsifying evidence is not a "mistake" and it is something people do to affirm their faith, not in order to scientifically analyze something. It just so happens that this time we have faith in AGW which pushes people to falsify evidence, instead of faith in an invisible sky wizard who created a flat earth in the center of the universe and populated it with humans and fake fossils 6000 years ago.

If you comprehend the concept of "the illusion of superiority" fully you would see that if it is true then everyone must think that they are competent and that thus posting that video is supportive of their position.

The question has become an issue of whether the so called "scientists" (politicians and activists) falsified data; or is it a clever smear campaign. Whether the various legitimate organizations and researchers who have left the IPCC amidst claims that the data that they have uncovered is being falsified by the politicians running the place.

Showing a graph whose trendline indicates a rise in temperature (reply 7 by mumble) cannot be used as evidence to contradict a claim that the data which was used to chart it has been falsified. Certainly if the data in the graph was legitimate then you would have had a point.

It should be noted that the proponents of AGW are pushing nonsense such as "scientific consensus" and are led by anti capitalism nut cases who have a history of falsifying data, and have been caught doing so many times. This does not necessarily make their position false (they could be falsifying data for a genuine cause), but it certainly calls it into doubt and demolishes any respect and trust one could have towards them.

I recommend you go to your local university geoscience department and ask them about the issue. Rather then listening to what Al Gore and his ilk say about it.

EDIT: It is actually possible that a genuine issue was discovered by real scientists. In a panic, green fanatics, activists, and politicians have picked up "the cause" and have started falsifying data to promote their faith (which could be coincidently true) and are actually harming "the cause" in their stupidity and eagerness to "aid the cause" by engaging in such illegitimate behavior.

But so far I have seen many legitimate scientists find flaws in AGW data and theories. While the pro AGW pundits run amok with unsound, unscientific, and unethical behavior wrought by their retarded beliefs (capitalism is bad, corporations are evil, business destroys the earth, etc etc).

AGW is very similar to creationism in this regards. Amusingly, it is usually equated to evolution by the "believers".

Nothing but weather men.  Don't know shit about climate - you said so yourself.  Unless you're referring to the department secretaries - they're the ones with the real knowledge.

arrg... "agrees"? what kind of morons are they to "agree" OR "disagree" and to provide that as their evidence. When I discuss the issue with professors the question of agreement never once came up. Discuss the actual mechanisms, ask for experiments showing CO2 contributes to global temperatures, ask about the percentage of yearly CO2 emissions caused by humans (under 3%)... also, look at the global levels of actual CO2 in the atmosphere. I expected much more from MIT. I have been discussing it with professors who work in the field, that is actually why I suggested it in the first place.

You are confusing faith and science. Your faith in NASA to be able to do no wrong is misplaced. (as can be evidenced by a series of mishaps which were preventable). Did NASA publish the data or actually measure it? where has it been measuring it? is NASA immune to political pressure?

Crazy idiots like 9-11 truthers and alien abduction nuts have cast the very concept of a conspiracy in a negative light. Conspiracies are very real. In fact people are convicted of conspiring to commit a crime all the time in courts. Look up the RAM cartels for an example.

For someone to doubt the validity of NASA does not actually require a world wide conspiracy, it only requires a few individuals within NASA cooking the books, who don't have to be scientists; AGW as a whole requires a conspiracy, or rather, a set of small conspiracies, they don't have to be global though.

One of the issues is of course the whole "but people will speak up". And indeed, they do. These aren't some nut cases living the woods and talking about how the "conspiracy is controlling everything", but the geoscience department heads of very prestigious universities who were invited to the IPCC and either in disgust seeing politicians perverting their work; or remain in the IPCC and point out that their work is being falsified.

As for the whole "the data shows warming"... one of the chief accusations is that of selectively terminating measuring stations showing cooling.