Global Warming Debate - Gavin Schmidt, part 5 of 10

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your stupidity.

AGW has nothing to do with creationists - and I am not a creationist.

The fact of the matter is that climate science likes to pretend that it is as hard a science as physics, when, in fact, it is far closer to psychology both in methodology and in accuracy (although I'd say even psych is more accurate).

We used to say that psychology has "physics envy," but I think that phrase applies far better to the new field of climate science.

Creationists are jumping all over those hacked emails just like their so-called "gaps" in the fossil record, which have steadily been filled. They chase strawmen wherever they can be invented.

You simply can't change the minds of dogmatists and authoritarian conservatives (a form of mental illness). The best hope is to let them die out and hope that the average human brain evolves further. It might take millions of years, if we even last that long.

If I tilt my monitor just right....Gavin turns into a floating head.

Gavin Schmit is complete slime. The hacked emails shows he let those fradulent scientist use his "Real Climate" website for propaganda.

The lies that come out of his mouth are unbelievable - unless you have a thing for British accents.

CSI? You guys ARE the crime scene! LOL!

Climate computer models are based on fundamental well established physics. Output has been accurate so far, if not a bit underestimated... Don't assume you know how all computers work.

Anyone who has ever written or worked with a "sophisticated computer model" in any context can tell you that they are extraordinarily difficult to calibrate, and will frequently give bad results.

The lack of empirical evidence for this phenomenon is troubling. They should really study this for another decade or two before they start making social policy

The models are sophisticated enough to give useful results today. They get better all the time with increasing resolution. They are hindered most by lack of computers powerful enough to run them.

The scientists, like Richard Somerville that create the computer models do not make social policy.They inform the policy makers of the current state of the science.

AHH!! the Global WArming is real guys. ARE Not telling us ..how in figures .how they came to these conclusion!!THEY SUCK!

maybe its possible that your agenda has made u believe the global warming side u were fed. now both sides in this debate made good arguments. but the skeptic side made a better case, and the vote supports that. i know ur probably going to call me an idiot for being a skeptic but the evidence the skeptics present is stronger
co2 is not a pollutant. plants take in co2 and the mroe co2 they take in the better they grow
but one thing u should keep in mind is both sides are for green technologies.