15 years ago things were less clear, so obviously there were more papers looking into whether the warming was man-made or not. What the numbers are showing is that research today takes for granted that the warming is man-made and don't mention it specifically. Much like biologists take Evolution for granted and don't position papers for or against it anymore.

Translated: "Evolution does not contradict my ideology, so I accept it. AGW does, so I reject it."

It is obvious that your position on these has got nothing to do with the actual science.

It's not that they are only willing to use a crappy medium. It's that this crappy medium is the only place to keep in touch with all these people online.

I gave sources, read up in the thread.

I haven't seen any sources. Why not simply repost them if you actually do have sources?

Youtube his appearance on "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show". He has claimed the same thing many times in public formats, so I'm willing to bet it's not restricted to those 2 show episodes. Here is an article where he is making the claim.

I'm sorry, but you can't just point to a couple of TV shows. You need to give me the exact quotes and when and where they were made.

Now, you did come up with one specific example, but it turns out you were lying. He did not say he wants to outlaw religion. He said that teaching creationism to kids is abuse, and that it shouldn't be allowed in schools.

Hard to understand the Westboro Baptist Church example I take it?

No, I want examples of atheists that are the equivalent of the WBC.

If you refuse to admit Krauss is a bigot teaching hatred of Religion then no amount of proof would do any good would it?

He is not a bigot, and is not teaching hatred of religion. But the claim you made was that some atheist somewhere was as bad as the WBC. Evidence, please.

Many atheists are biased the same way a "Bible thumping zealot" is biased. No amount of facts will change their arguments, and they will never consider facts that counter their beliefs. They believe that their beliefs are right, and just like Religious zealots, condemn anyone that believes differently than they do.

So you can't actually back up your claims, and now you're trying to change the subject? That's just in addition to being caught lying, of course.

Again: Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Sources/examples, please.

Krauss shouts "death to religion" and wants to outlaw it? Sources, please.

The crusades may very well have been a war for land, but they were done in the name of religion. Now, I happen to think the reason for the crusades was justifiable (repel the attacker)...

A militant religionist attacks and kills people. That's why he's called militant. A militant atheist uses words, not weapons, and does not kill anyone.

Whose messages of hating religion? What are these messages? What are they shouting? Who are they? Also: Sources/examples, please.

Mao and Stalin were militant Communists, not Militant Atheists. They killed in the name of Communism, not Atheism. Their opposition to religion was incidental and not a cause of the killing, because religion posed a threat to Communist power.

Stalin and Mao are never referred to as militant atheists. When people talk about militant atheists, they're always referring to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Indeed, this was what you were saying as well. You said they were just shouting something, not killing anyone. So you were indeed referring to someone using words and not violence.

Also, Stalin and Mao are dead, and you were referring to current atheists.

Now, again, where are these militant atheists that are shouting "Death to Religion"?

So where are these militant atheists, and is shouting "Death to Religion" the only thing that makes them militant?

Funny how militant religionists are the ones killing people, while militant atheists merely shout, according to you guys who love labeling atheists as militants.

What are you talking about? You are just being a typical denier now.

Most militant atheists tend to show the same narcissistic characteristics as the extreme fundamentalist in certain Religions.

Hold on for a second.. What, exactly, is a "militant atheist," and how do you know what characteristics they tend to show?

Your claim was:

Right now this is a sorry showing for 'scientific consensus.'

This is pure denial. The consensus is clear. Scientists have a good understanding of the matter.

See, there you go again. No, phantomfive, I do not need to do science to point to the scientific consensus. Logic? That's what you lack. That, and knowledge.

The scientific consensus is clear. You will keep denying it because you are a science denier.

You are the one who thought that reading just a single scientific paper would give you the scientific consensus. For those of us who are not stumbling around in the darkness of denial, it's pretty to figure out. Those who are in denial will often deny there is even a consensus (and if they accept that there is one, they insist that it's because of cheating, conspiracies, etc.).

Case in point. Thanks for confirming what I wrote about you.

The consenus is not found by reading a scientific paper, or even two or three. The consensus reflects the collective position of the science/scientific community. The consensus is what the rest of us who are not scientists can rely on for the best understanding on what the science says.

Your article doesn't mention 2010 at all, much less any actual peer-reviewed research saying anything like that. Funnily enough, the very same article also quotes Viner as saying, "heavy snow will return occasionally" and that "Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time."

So what happened to your claim? "Heavy snow will return occasionally" doesn't really match your "completely snow and ice free" claim, now does it?

Worse yet (for you), a BBC article from January 2010 states: "Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK." Compare tha to the "will probably cause chaos" quote above.

I guess it's safe to say that your bluff has been called. Not only did the article you used as a source not say anything about anything being completely snow and ice free, but it actually referred to heavy snow!

And the peer-reviewed scientific papers claiming a completely snow and ice free Britain are where?