Why is is AGW proponents use answers like...?

First of all as the majority of the money coming into their religious movement is supplied by Exxon/Mobil and Standard/Chevron/Texaco through the Rockefeller family who organized and promoted the entire AGW con game it is only natural for them to believe it is some of their competitors that are funding the opposition. You need to recognize liberals are semi incompetent mentally or they would not be liberals as this infirmity is caused normally from the inability to visualize problems with a large number of complicated variables. This is why I continuously point the truth out as simply as I can by saying that it is the sun, but they still can not get it for some silly reason. Maybe that explanation is still to complicated for their simple minds.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

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

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

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

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

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

Edwina should check the mirror next time before calling someone a dodo.

1. It was paid for by big oil, (Alarmist translation: paid for by evil corporation bent on polluting the world. It is a childlike Austin Powers outlook of the world)

2. Mann has resurected his schtick and alarmists are bowing dutifully before it. You cannot destroy a religious symbol

3. You can't destroy a religious symbol, in this case a "L" and you will only confuse alarmists with the facts. It is difficult to argue with someone that won't think logically.

1. Both sides claim that those doing studies have agendas.

2. There are some websites that have a history of leaving out important details in the data, performing questionable data analysis, and coming to the completely wrong conclusions from the data. Generally when people say a denier website cannot be trusted, it is not the raw data that is not trusted, it is the conclusions.

3. If a study is found to be flawed it does not show that the theory is wrong. A flawed study is neither evidence for or against a theory.

Yeah. i discover my solutions thumbed down almost as though they are waiting interior the trees to pounce on them. I had to take the prospect of this thread and thumbs down many of the alarmists which i do no longer many times do. Revenge is a dish superb served chilly.

1 Yep, and the studies promoted by Philip Morris that claimed there was no definitive link between smoking and lung cancer are all valid too, right?

2 I wouldn't study biology using the New Testament. No point trying to "learn" climate science on a blog like WUWT. The bottom line is, get your science from scientists, not random people on the internet.

"it all has to do with the data, not the source"

Many people who don't understand climate science basics, such as yourself, can't comprehend said data. I'll readily admit I can't comprehend applied quantum physics. How in the world can I audit contradictory theories? There isn't any way. Because I don't understand theoretical physics, I have to rely on experts. You don't understand climate science (judging by your previous posts), so you should get your science from scientists.

3 Any examples? No one believes the hockey stick graph is flawed. Though I suppose you believe you know more about climate science than climate scientists and the NAS.

Because they can use what ever they need to defend their religion. What I love is when they use a three month spike in global average temperatures as proof yet they get upset when someone uses data from a decade.

They seem to think that if they make the rules then they can't be proven wrong. What I find funny is that the Governments are behind the funding for man made climate change and guess what the scientists getting government money show that man is causing this round of climate change.

1. Of course government money that funds a study of why bigger and more powerful government is necessary is going to produce more reliable results.

2. Are you kidding? They're deniers! Are you really going to believe somebody that they call a name that makes them sound holocaust deniers?

3. It doesn't matter if there was fraud in the study because according to the results of the study AGW is really happening. (I've been hearing this one a lot about climategate.)

I equate the first to the alarmist version of a conspiracy ploy, and boy there have been some good ones. Takes one back to the Timothy Leary days of yore. The second and latter are tie-ins, I can sense their frustration in trying to make everyone believe CO2 drives the universe. You have to admit, they carry some large hammers around. That makes this square peg theory universal, fitting into any hole.

On one and two, I could cut them a LITTLE slack, as I don't even look at anything from the IPCC or any of the other heavily in the agw camp items any more. They're so biased that they're a waste of time.

They may think the same for ours and I could understand that. (However skeptics are better at replying to the claims made, without simply referring to the bias of the site. I admit that sometimes the pile of excrement is deep enough that it's easier to label the whole pile what it is.)

On item three, that's because they really have gotten nutty. They've invested their identities in global warming, and any doubt that it's happening they now interpret as doubt of their very being. It seems to me that "oops, global warming is wrong" counselors could make a lot of money pretty soon. (I might have to write that book.)

Some day, the denial movement might just take off, and la-la-la, none of us ever need to worry anymore.

Even at Copenhagen COP15, we can see a large group in a room at the deniers' summit made up mainly with grand titles of Emeritus Professors - retired former professors( for those who wonder what Emeritus means).

35,000 mainstream supporters versus a room full of deniers. The game is just so unfair!

So our dear BBC correpondent donated his presence at the deniers' summit to give them some significant numerical and moral support.

One has to thank the BBC for humanitarianism towards dodos.