Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Page 15 of 21 [ 328 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jul 2015, 12:03 am

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Lintar wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Nobody is forcing "same-sex" marriage on anyone; simply giving gays the right to marry -- big difference between that and how some conservative Christians seek to impose their morality of others.


Well, actually they are forcing it on to us. They may now tell people that churches and other organisations that perform marriages will still have the freedom to reject what they call 'gay marriage', but if the history of such movements is anything to go by (and it is), within a couple of years they will be screaming "BIGOTRY!" at anyone who, in clear conscience, finds such... 'arrangements', let's call them, objectionable and wrong. Then will come the laws that will prohibit the free expression of opposition to these so-called marriages.



If you honestly believe that in this country, the law can compell clergy to perform religious ceremonies, you're going to need a thicker tinfoil hat.


Which country are we talking about here? At the moment where I am - Australia, not the U.S. - we are undergoing a concerted and highly co-ordinated offensive by the 'gay marriage' lobby in politics, academia and the media. The bombardment of pro-marriage propaganda would make Goebbels proud (ex. the patently false claim that about 72% of the general public supports the notion). They are trying to force people into accepting it, and calling opponents 'bigots' for simply standing up for what is right. The same thing happened with the CO2 tax we had here, based as it was upon the patently silly notion that the Earth is warming due to the development of industry, even though there is NO, and there never has been, any evidence for it. People were, and still are, called 'deniers' simply because they would not swallow the B.S. and had the sense to question what they were hearing.
how nice that you're set on treating people like second class citizens, and that you are ignorant of climate science yet act like you know. probably soon australia will be left as one of the only first world countries with inequality within it's borders, what a shame.


Fugu, the global warming alarm is nothing but a money-making, tax-raising scam. There is no 'science' within it to refute, it is based upon lies (ex. since 1998 there has been no overall increase in mean global temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2 has consistently risen to ever higher levels since, thanks largely to the Chinese economy developing as rapidly as it has, and yet the fear-mongers like to downplay this inconvenient fact).


99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Jul 2015, 3:10 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Lintar wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Nobody is forcing "same-sex" marriage on anyone; simply giving gays the right to marry -- big difference between that and how some conservative Christians seek to impose their morality of others.


Well, actually they are forcing it on to us. They may now tell people that churches and other organisations that perform marriages will still have the freedom to reject what they call 'gay marriage', but if the history of such movements is anything to go by (and it is), within a couple of years they will be screaming "BIGOTRY!" at anyone who, in clear conscience, finds such... 'arrangements', let's call them, objectionable and wrong. Then will come the laws that will prohibit the free expression of opposition to these so-called marriages.



If you honestly believe that in this country, the law can compell clergy to perform religious ceremonies, you're going to need a thicker tinfoil hat.


Which country are we talking about here? At the moment where I am - Australia, not the U.S. - we are undergoing a concerted and highly co-ordinated offensive by the 'gay marriage' lobby in politics, academia and the media. The bombardment of pro-marriage propaganda would make Goebbels proud (ex. the patently false claim that about 72% of the general public supports the notion). They are trying to force people into accepting it, and calling opponents 'bigots' for simply standing up for what is right. The same thing happened with the CO2 tax we had here, based as it was upon the patently silly notion that the Earth is warming due to the development of industry, even though there is NO, and there never has been, any evidence for it. People were, and still are, called 'deniers' simply because they would not swallow the B.S. and had the sense to question what they were hearing.
how nice that you're set on treating people like second class citizens, and that you are ignorant of climate science yet act like you know. probably soon australia will be left as one of the only first world countries with inequality within it's borders, what a shame.


Fugu, the global warming alarm is nothing but a money-making, tax-raising scam. There is no 'science' within it to refute, it is based upon lies (ex. since 1998 there has been no overall increase in mean global temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2 has consistently risen to ever higher levels since, thanks largely to the Chinese economy developing as rapidly as it has, and yet the fear-mongers like to downplay this inconvenient fact).


99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


99%? I have serious problems believing the numbers being claimed.

For what it's worth, from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/:
Quote:
A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority.


Maybe under the New Math, 30 is 99% of 65.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 3:27 pm

eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


99%? I have serious problems believing the numbers being claimed.

For what it's worth, from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/:
Quote:
A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority.


Maybe under the New Math, 30 is 99% of 65.
(pedantry warning)
Nobel laureates do not make up the entirety of climate science, and it's not the scientists themselves that believe it, it's more a case that a study of 4,014 abstracts about climate change, 97.2% of those abstracts assumed that humans had a role in global warming.

source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-warming/



Last edited by Fugu on 07 Jul 2015, 3:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Jul 2015, 3:35 pm

Does australia comingle church and state? That could get ugly, for the official church i mean.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Jul 2015, 3:38 pm

Fugu wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Lintar wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Nobody is forcing "same-sex" marriage on anyone; simply giving gays the right to marry -- big difference between that and how some conservative Christians seek to impose their morality of others.


Well, actually they are forcing it on to us. They may now tell people that churches and other organisations that perform marriages will still have the freedom to reject what they call 'gay marriage', but if the history of such movements is anything to go by (and it is), within a couple of years they will be screaming "BIGOTRY!" at anyone who, in clear conscience, finds such... 'arrangements', let's call them, objectionable and wrong. Then will come the laws that will prohibit the free expression of opposition to these so-called marriages.



If you honestly believe that in this country, the law can compell clergy to perform religious ceremonies, you're going to need a thicker tinfoil hat.


Which country are we talking about here? At the moment where I am - Australia, not the U.S. - we are undergoing a concerted and highly co-ordinated offensive by the 'gay marriage' lobby in politics, academia and the media. The bombardment of pro-marriage propaganda would make Goebbels proud (ex. the patently false claim that about 72% of the general public supports the notion). They are trying to force people into accepting it, and calling opponents 'bigots' for simply standing up for what is right. The same thing happened with the CO2 tax we had here, based as it was upon the patently silly notion that the Earth is warming due to the development of industry, even though there is NO, and there never has been, any evidence for it. People were, and still are, called 'deniers' simply because they would not swallow the B.S. and had the sense to question what they were hearing.
how nice that you're set on treating people like second class citizens, and that you are ignorant of climate science yet act like you know. probably soon australia will be left as one of the only first world countries with inequality within it's borders, what a shame.


Fugu, the global warming alarm is nothing but a money-making, tax-raising scam. There is no 'science' within it to refute, it is based upon lies (ex. since 1998 there has been no overall increase in mean global temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2 has consistently risen to ever higher levels since, thanks largely to the Chinese economy developing as rapidly as it has, and yet the fear-mongers like to downplay this inconvenient fact).


99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


99%? I have serious problems believing the numbers being claimed.

For what it's worth, from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/:
Quote:
A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority.


Maybe under the New Math, 30 is 99% of 65.
nobel laureates do not make up the entirety of climate science, and it's 97% of the world's climatologists that concur on the temperature rising. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Keep in mind that the scientific consensus was arrived at by people who wanted to show as high a consensus as possible reading abstracts and looking for any possible sign that the authors supported the idea. From what I've read, they counted all the authors on a paper as being on the same side of the issue and did not attempt to count each one only once.

In any case, I hope it is warming. That would be fantastic. The real danger is cooling, not warming.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 3:50 pm

eric76 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
nobel laureates do not make up the entirety of climate science, and it's 97% of the world's climatologists that concur on the temperature rising. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Keep in mind that the scientific consensus was arrived at by people who wanted to show as high a consensus as possible reading abstracts and looking for any possible sign that the authors supported the idea. From what I've read, they counted all the authors on a paper as being on the same side of the issue and did not attempt to count each one only once.
so you've no real data to back up your conclusion, just semantics. gotcha.
Quote:
In any case, I hope it is warming. That would be fantastic. The real danger is cooling, not warming.

it is warming, and it's not fantastic, it's the human race gambolling down the path towards extinction.
Image

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... spm-2.html



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Jul 2015, 4:44 pm

Fugu wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
nobel laureates do not make up the entirety of climate science, and it's 97% of the world's climatologists that concur on the temperature rising. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Keep in mind that the scientific consensus was arrived at by people who wanted to show as high a consensus as possible reading abstracts and looking for any possible sign that the authors supported the idea. From what I've read, they counted all the authors on a paper as being on the same side of the issue and did not attempt to count each one only once.
so you've no real data to back up your conclusion, just semantics. gotcha.
Quote:
In any case, I hope it is warming. That would be fantastic. The real danger is cooling, not warming.

it is warming, and it's not fantastic, it's the human race gambolling down the path towards extinction.
Image

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... spm-2.html


Mindless panic is never pretty.

If you really want to find out the consequences of warming, don't look at limited mathematical models. Instead, look at history. And if you look at history for the answer, you will see that warming is quite beneficial.

I don't believe for a second that it is just coincidence that mankind was finally able to take its first baby steps toward civilization at a time when it was substantially warmer (about 2 C) than today.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 5:11 pm

eric76 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Fugu wrote:
nobel laureates do not make up the entirety of climate science, and it's 97% of the world's climatologists that concur on the temperature rising. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Keep in mind that the scientific consensus was arrived at by people who wanted to show as high a consensus as possible reading abstracts and looking for any possible sign that the authors supported the idea. From what I've read, they counted all the authors on a paper as being on the same side of the issue and did not attempt to count each one only once.
so you've no real data to back up your conclusion, just semantics. gotcha.
Quote:
In any case, I hope it is warming. That would be fantastic. The real danger is cooling, not warming.

it is warming, and it's not fantastic, it's the human race gambolling down the path towards extinction.
Image

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... spm-2.html


Mindless panic is never pretty.

If you really want to find out the consequences of warming, don't look at limited mathematical models. Instead, look at history. And if you look at history for the answer, you will see that warming is quite beneficial.

I don't believe for a second that it is just coincidence that mankind was finally able to take its first baby steps toward civilization at a time when it was substantially warmer (about 2 C) than today.
you've yet to provide any proof of your claims beyond endless repetitions on "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". i've provided data to back up my claims, where's your proof?



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 10:45 pm

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
how nice that you're set on treating people like second class citizens, and that you are ignorant of climate science yet act like you know. probably soon australia will be left as one of the only first world countries with inequality within it's borders, what a shame.


Fugu, the global warming alarm is nothing but a money-making, tax-raising scam. There is no 'science' within it to refute, it is based upon lies (ex. since 1998 there has been no overall increase in mean global temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2 has consistently risen to ever higher levels since, thanks largely to the Chinese economy developing as rapidly as it has, and yet the fear-mongers like to downplay this inconvenient fact).
Ok, where's your proof for it being a scam then?


I don't have, nor could I ever have, 'proof', but there is evidence to be found. To get you going, I suggest you get yourself a copy of the well-researched documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Some have criticised this documentary for being 'misleading', as they have put it, but no, it isn't.

Here is a link to a number of books that have been published recently on this: http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Veter ... 1935071831



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 10:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


Just for the record, I myself do not, nor have I ever had, views that anyone could seriously consider to be 'right-wing'. When it comes to most issues I am to the Left of Lenin, but I still say that this whole Global Warming farrago has absolutely nothing going for it. The next time you see Alphonse Gore, just ask him why he doesn't sail a boat when he travels around the world. That would be far more environmentally friendly, wouldn't it? Sailing releases zero CO2 into the atmosphere, but all of these environmental nut-jobs prefer to travel first-class. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because even they themselves don't believe in this bull-sh*$?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 11:02 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
how nice that you're set on treating people like second class citizens, and that you are ignorant of climate science yet act like you know. probably soon australia will be left as one of the only first world countries with inequality within it's borders, what a shame.


Fugu, the global warming alarm is nothing but a money-making, tax-raising scam. There is no 'science' within it to refute, it is based upon lies (ex. since 1998 there has been no overall increase in mean global temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2 has consistently risen to ever higher levels since, thanks largely to the Chinese economy developing as rapidly as it has, and yet the fear-mongers like to downplay this inconvenient fact).
Ok, where's your proof for it being a scam then?


I don't have, nor could I ever have, 'proof', but there is evidence to be found. To get you going, I suggest you get yourself a copy of the well-researched documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Some have criticised this documentary for being 'misleading', as they have put it, but no, it isn't.

Here is a link to a number of books that have been published recently on this: http://www.amazon.com/Climategate-Veter ... 1935071831
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:06 pm

From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Jul 2015, 11:08 pm

Lintar wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


Just for the record, I myself do not, nor have I ever had, views that anyone could seriously consider to be 'right-wing'. When it comes to most issues I am to the Left of Lenin, but I still say that this whole Global Warming farrago has absolutely nothing going for it. The next time you see Alphonse Gore, just ask him why he doesn't sail a boat when he travels around the world. That would be far more environmentally friendly, wouldn't it? Sailing releases zero CO2 into the atmosphere, but all of these environmental nut-jobs prefer to travel first-class. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because even they themselves don't believe in this bull-sh*$?


Just because Gore doesn't use sails on his boat just shows that he's personally inconsistent, but it hardly means that he's wrong about global warming. Especially since the mass majority of scientists agree with him.
For the record, I could probably give Trotsky a run for his money being left wing.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:11 pm

Fugu wrote:
ok, so you've no proof and can only offer up a rightwing propaganda puff piece and a book by a TV weatherman(he sure isn't a scientist). hardly compelling evidence.


That's right - no proof. Proof is for mathematicians. Why do I get the very strong impression you have no idea how science actually works? It's all about evidence and, if you would actually make the effort to find it, you would.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

07 Jul 2015, 11:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
99% of scientists would disagree with you about global warming being a hoax. But then again, the right never has been a home for science and learning. Rather, it's the political movement that props up ridiculous pseudoscience that teaches that evolution is a hoax.
As for your earlier post concerning gay marriage being forced down our throats by calling anyone opposed to it bigots - I believe the same charge was leveled by the opponents of civil rights and interracial marriage.


Just for the record, I myself do not, nor have I ever had, views that anyone could seriously consider to be 'right-wing'. When it comes to most issues I am to the Left of Lenin, but I still say that this whole Global Warming farrago has absolutely nothing going for it. The next time you see Alphonse Gore, just ask him why he doesn't sail a boat when he travels around the world. That would be far more environmentally friendly, wouldn't it? Sailing releases zero CO2 into the atmosphere, but all of these environmental nut-jobs prefer to travel first-class. Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because even they themselves don't believe in this bull-sh*$?


Just because Gore doesn't use sails on his boat just shows that he's personally inconsistent, but it hardly means that he's wrong about global warming. Especially since the mass majority of scientists agree with him.
For the record, I could probably give Trotsky a run for his money being left wing.


Don't you think that someone with his high public profile should set an example, and live the way he incessantly tells others how they should? Don't you think this is... I don't know, a little hypocritical? "Do as I say, don't do as I do". He is not the only one who does this though. That corrupt political organisation known as the I.P.C.C. has no members who live like Gandhi either.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

07 Jul 2015, 11:18 pm

Lintar wrote:
From the I.P.C.C. link -

"Figure SPM.2. Illustrative examples of global impacts projected for climate changes (and sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide where relevant) associated with different amounts of increase in global average surface temperature in the 21st century [T20.8]. The black lines link impacts, dotted arrows indicate impacts continuing with increasing temperature. Entries are placed so that the left-hand side of the text indicates the approximate onset of a given impact. Quantitative entries for water stress and flooding represent the additional impacts of climate change relative to the conditions projected across the range of Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) scenarios A1FI, A2, B1 and B2 (see Endbox 3). Adaptation to climate change is not included in these estimations. All entries are from published studies recorded in the chapters of the Assessment. Sources are given in the right-hand column of the Table. Confidence levels for all statements are high."

This statement, which lies directly beneath the very colourful image seen and linked to above, is, as one would expect due to the inherently chaotic nature of climate, imprecise. A projection of what may happen, given certain foundational assumptions, guesses, and based upon information that is, inevitably, open to challenge. Yet, we are expected to believe that "the science is settled". No, it isn't, and all those who claim it is are guilty of fraud.
We're about +0.18 degrees up since 1999. you can split hairs about it being a consensus as you like, but the science is sound to those who don't seek to make it political.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Co ... n_DK12.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/



cron