Show me the data that demonstrates the direct effects of 0.85c increase in temperature.
Observable problems NOW.

Not bullshit sensationalist propaganda about Indias heat wave or the flooding in Texas, which is NOT unprecedented nor un usual.

Discredit the opponent by stating he is inferior in intelligence, knowledge and honesty.

Then ask, why anyone should listen to him.

Tell your "scientists" to debate skeptical client scientists, on the SCIENCE.

Lets see how they defend their lies in front of observational data and facts.

OMG.

I've had enough of all this bullshit about breaking the planet.

The ignorance and arrogance it takes to make that argument is astounding.

0.85C over the last 100 years or so and all the idiots are panicking, the MSM is licking its lips to the bank while scaring the shit out of the dumb ones, and those who know better are using all of this for political advantage.

It has gotten so insane, that many of those scared idiots actually BELIEVE that they can SEE and observable change on the planets climate when they look outside. WAKE UP, YOU CANT!!!

That 0.85c increase is most notable in daily LOW temperatures and in colder months. That means, it has nothing do with heat waves or daily extremes at the moment. You CANT observe it.

Also, the science shows there isn't more of any of the symptoms MSM is trying to get us scared about:

NOT MORE:
- Extreme hot days;
- Extreme precipitation;
- Extreme tornadoes;
- Extreme droughts;
- Extreme hurricanes;
- Extreme weather of any kind;

We see scientists manipulating data left and right, barely justifying why and then greeny blogosphere spend years coming up with justifications for the actions and stating thats how real science works.

I sometimes feel like I'm falling down a rabbit hole into a world where black is white and hot is cold.

You see. You throw a whole bunch of insults. You put everyone you disagree with in 1 basket, point to it, and say they are all liers.

This has the need little benefit that those in that basket who do know WTF they are talking about, get discredited with the rest.

In the end, you dont need to debate, because hey, what do deniers have to contribute anyways?

Propaganda 101. And either you are part of the problem OR your already brainwashed.

Which of the 2 is worst... I'm not sure.

I simply replied to your statement.

If you do not stand by your statements, why should we even read what you say?
Or more importantly, why even bother making a statement?

Are you pretending to speak from a position of neutrality, all the while using standard political derogatory name calling to shape the debate?

Those that dont give a shit about the science are those running from debates. This has been seen time and time again.

The whole denier meme is a strong one, created to shun the opposition and discredit them before they even manage to get out of the gate. I mean, who the hell would even consider the "deniers" point of view.

The fact that you use this term, shows how much your stance has nothing to do with science.

Thats your reply?

NUHUH!!!!!

Actually, it takes allot of squinting to see a rise in temperature.

Pray tell, by how much it has gone up in 15 years?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... RSS Satellite data = 0.0 degree increase
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... HADCRUT4 data = 0.1 degree increase
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl... HADCRUT3 unajusted data = 0.0 degree increase

Even going by HADCRUT4 0.1C takes allot a squiting to see, especially given that error factor for global readings is way beyond 0.1c.

Basically its NOISE.

Now... you where saying?

He havent measured any effects, except that the temperatures have slightly warmed over a century.

Any other effects are conjecture so far.

You shouldnt trust politicians, you are right there. Except... politicians are the ones pushing this fallacy, not the other way around.

You want to talk about "bribes"? How about those same politicians control the biggest grant giving entity... government.

I do trust whats in front of me. And what I and the real science sees, is a large divergence from climate models. The observational data is showing us there is nothing to be alarmed about.

Unfortunately, Frogger probably had more playtime and impact than Zork.

You have proof of this?

I think you kinda ignore the word "potential" when reading that.

However, it is only warming (during some periods) by a few trailing decimal points, so its very important.

Whoosh.

Because climate science is righteous and cannot possibly be affected by the problems mentioned in the article. Right?

Good point.

Now take a science subject, combine the journalism problems with the science problems and splash in a bit of political agenda...

Add to the mix a little bit of Group Think, and you have a very very big problem.