Do you want a link to a site that will explain why ALL the 'deniers' myths are totaly bogus?

Question

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Answer 1

Do you want a link to a lecture by one of the best experts on global warming that shows real data, not hypothetical computer models, and there is no alarming trend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmc...

What is even more telling, that these arguments from the link you have given do not stand up in climate change forums:

From La Marguerite, via Tom Nelson.  The comments are so honest and rational, I would fear they were fake if I did not see them in the original:

    When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving.

    The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away - they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange.

In the following months the situation hardly changed. As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/0...

Answer 2

tell me more

Answer 3

i am a deist

we do not subscribe to the great global warming religion.

the New Scientist is a propagandia publication of the radical far left enviromentalist movement.

In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides".[2].

////The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying that it is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories"[3]./////

the NEW SCIENTIST is by there own words a IDEA MAGAZINE.

It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scienti...

come on you have to do better then that.

at least find something peer reviewed not something by a enviromentalist publication

Answer 4

Great link.

The claim that New Scientist is no good because a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER said so is absurd.

As is the claim that global warming is some kind of far left thing.  Sensible conservatives are annoyed with the denies because they make the conservative movement look ignorant.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 5

As with wikipedia...Global warming zealots.