Quoting the_Peoples_Party,
All you did was ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominen, and poisoning the well. By the way, those aren't compliments those are fallacies.
The entire argument earlier was not based on science, it was based on the idea that the entire world is a Chinese plot to destroy the U.S, and that certain people are telling "the truth" but being drowned out by the world conspiracy. In that case, it's not at all ad hominem to point out that the people allegedly telling the truth are all known liars and shills of the Republican party. It's entirely relevant. This is really the only thing that one can use since no one here is trying to use actual scientific data that they've gathered themselves. You yourself are just posting a whole bunch of links to things that other people wrote. You have no way of knowing whether any of these things are true or not, since you don't do your own experiments, and you don't know enough about climatology to really form a valid model of global weather based only on your own observations. I don't either. No one in this thread can. In order to be able to form a valid world model based only on your own personal data, you'd need to be a highly educated climatologist who is doing lots of research and experiments. You know; like the actual scientists.
That's kind of my whole point. Posting links to things other people wrote is not "science", and you can't take it as such, because those people might be lying, and you have no way of knowing whether or not it's true. For people who are completely removed from the actual study of climatology (the vast majority of Americans), it's 95% a matter of deciding who to trust. Either, you trust the scientists or you trust the Republicans. Both sides have their own websites, and they both have conflicting "science". Only one side can be telling the truth.
You posted a lot of links. Before I get to that, let me restate what I was saying: Every legitimate --> SCIENTIFIC BODY <-- agrees on anthropogenic global warming. --> INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS MAY DISAGREE <-- but they are in the vast minority. So you've posted a bunch of links to individual reports. This doesn't change the fact that every scientific organization has released groupwide statements agreeing with it. I'm not denying individual scientists disagree. There are two main points I'm making:
1) Every national and international scientific organization in the world agrees. Here's the statement by the Joint Science Academies: http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf
Here's a great list, with an introduction that I think is very important to read, in order to understand the importance of peer review and credibility: http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
Here's wikipedia's list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (And I know you were probably told that wikipedia's a liberal conspiracy too, but please just check the sources at the bottom of the page to verify the data first.)
2) The scientists who disagree are a small minority, and many are Republican shills.
SourceWatch is a great place to find info on sources, to let you judge their credibility. Here's some info on the Heartland Institute, which has been quoted repeatedly in this thread: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
Some good info on all the PR think tanks that Republicans spun up as Kyoto was approaching: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html
A good article about why you shouldn't trust "surveys" of articles that say that there are large numbers of people disagreeing: http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-12-scientists-endorse-global-warming.html -the imporant thing is that just because an article about warming doesn't specifically say "We believe in anthropogenic global warming" doesn't mean it's taking a noncomittal stance. Like he says, biology articles almost never say "We believe in evolution", nor do they attempt to "prove" evolution anymore, the people writing the article take the consensus as well-proven and are writing about some other specific thing.
Ok... I don't have the patience to go through each of your links in depth one by one, so I'll try to give a brief summary. First, almost all of the sites require you to pay in order to read the actual article, and I'm not going to do that; I don't think you did either, as you just quote the abstract. So I'm going to have to work just off of that, which isn't very useful. But:
The first - actually does disagree. Good work.
The second - Doesn't seem to disagree. Just because they're talking about glacial changes being related to the oceans doesn't mean they're denying pollution. They say it's "associated" with the rise in carbon emissions - I don't think this means they're saying it's the sole cause of it. If they were denying global warming theory, I think they'd be more up front with it in the abstract.
The third - Is a synopsis of research from a scientist in the 1950's. There are some tenuous attempts to link it to more current research, but most of it is from the 50's, before global warming research really began in earnest.
The fourth - Does seem to disagree. The overwhelming majority still believe that the solar cycle isn't enough to cause this much change. If you're interested, the IPCC actually did do a whole lot of investigation into solar cycle theories, but they came to a consensus that it's not enough to cause this drastic a change. A graph: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm
The fifth - was written in 1990. That was before the massive upswing. If you look at the graph above, she's right; it does match pretty closely up to 1990. It's after that that it goes way up.
The sixth - I think the key is that in the abstract they say "we cannot say if this effect is local, regional, or global".
The seventh - I think the key is that in the abstract they say "at this time they are not statistically significant".
The eighth - was written in 1961. Before global warming happened.
The ninth - First, written in 1997, so a little early. Second, is interesting because it disagrees with your earlier articles about solar radiance. Also doesn't really mention anthropogenic warming or disagree, probably because there wasn't much study on it in '97.
The tenth and eleventh - Yeah, peer review IS important (wah wah). Spencer's an interesting guy - did you know he believes in the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve? And that he denies evolution, and thinks humans lived with dinosaurs? And that he's a working member of the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall institute, two Republican think tanks with mission statements to discredit science that might harm the interests of American corporations or the Republican party?
The twelfth - Doesn't sound like denial of global warming to me. It's about sea levels rising, not so much about temperature and warming. There's more to global warming than just sea levels.
The thirteenth - Doesn't deny global warming. Just about sea levels.
The fourteenth - Doesn't deny it. Weird because you even highlighted the part where he talks about anthropogenic warming. He's not saying it doesn't exist; he's saying that it does exist, but it doesn't necessarily effect the rate of tropical hurricanes.
Wooooo that was more typing than I really wanted to do. I think I'm done with this argument.
