Quote Originally Posted by Gman
Quote Originally Posted by Recon
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.

Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.

Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.

First, your wrong about the “true scientists”:

What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

Second, you cite a falsehood as an inconvenient truth and suggest a conspiracy. That is in line with Card and "the best offense is a good defense" method of argument. Unfortunately, the fallacy is made apparent in your suggesting this is a religious argument for me. In fact, religion has little, if anything to do with science and relies mostly on unsupported belief. Nice try, though, in taking your greatest weakness and attributing it to the opposition. The WWF’s interpretation is in accord with their own data. Had you followed up on their link you would have seen it. You’re like the guy who argues 1+1 = 2 when the teacher is talking procreation. :roll: