Put up or shut up. You have danced around the questions with cut and pastes from denier blogs. The Earth is warming. CO2 is a GHG. Burning fossil fuels increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you show any of these to be false?<quoted text>
Like I said... warmists love their authorities.
So tell me... where's your science? I mean personally, not the work of someone else. C'mon... let's see you stand up to your own standards that only "peer reviewed" studies count.
I want to see yours.
Until then, you're just spewing mindless talking points you learned from the other warmists that believe that only "peer reviewed science from reputable journals" can be used in any debate.
A fallacy of authority, to be sure.... and warmists love their authorities.
“You can’t believe what that guy says. He research was funded by Greenpeace!”
The person uttering this sentence has committed the economic fallacy, which is the belief that the truth of research depends on how that research was obtained or who funded it. More specifically, the economic fallacy says results are false because they were obtained using money from a source known or suspected to be slimy, or is otherwise just plain unlikeable.
Greenpeace and its funders have repeatedly shown themselves to be unlikeable. Greenpeace’s press releases and fund-raising literature, for example, are filled with obfuscations, prevarications, wild speculations, half truths, and worse. Extremely unlikeable behavior. But that does not mean that the research Greenpeace releases is automatically false.
Nor does it imply that the research of the many scientists or organizations Greenpeace funds and supports is automatically false. To say that it is to commit the economic fallacy.
The economic fallacy also rears its illogical head if we consider that Greenpeace’s results must be false because they receive funding from Big Oil and other large corporations. Because we dislike these corporations does not mean that Greenpeace’s results, or again the results from the groups and scientists Greenpeace itself funds, are false because of this funding.
Greenpeace also receives a lot of money from actors and other glitterati, plus a bundle from people and organizations of the far, far left. Again, just because this is so does not mean that was Greenpeace says is false.
The tiresome truth is that each claim Greenpeace or its sponsored scientists and organizations makes must be checked for its veracity. Each and every one, each and every time. None can be dismissed because we dislike the source of funding.
Now just think: if the economic fallacy were not a fallacy, then how could we trust any results? After all, each scientist is funded by someone (even if that someone is himself). How can we be sure that this someone did not dictate the results? All humans are fallible and disagreeable in some way, so if there were no economic fallacy, we could claim any new result is false just by identifying what is disagreeable about someone. And that, dear readers, would take very little effort.
What's good for the goose...
What does Green peace or Climate Audit have to do with the science? What does Al Gore have to do with the science. Climate scientists, the experts, have diligently studied climate change and have found that global warming is happening and that man is implicit. That is the science. What skeptics must do is to show that the premise is incorrect. Whining and nit picking are not going to help their cause.
When you present some solid science that supports your position instead of innuendo and obscure disagreements perhaps someone will listen. So far all you have accomplished is to show how little you understand.