There is nothing in what was posted that took the points made by this scientist and showed why they were wrong.

The evidence is there is you want to do a bare minimum of research. Obviously you do not want to do the research but would rather take at the face value of one individual.

All that was presented was a call to authority and ridicule.


Yes, yes, big bad science establishment, conspiracy, black helicopters.....

I ridicule him because he is in fact ridiculous.

Science is not democratic. Things are voted on and the idea that gets the most votes is the one that describes reality.


Ah, which one are you plumping for above?...contradictory statements.

Claiming we should believe a hypothesis because it has consensus would have lead us, at one point in time, to believe the earth was flat and that there was not direct relation between matter and energy.


And clinging to an outmoded hypothesis ( or denying one, in this case) makes one look like a flat earther. The weight of data is what creates consensus. The weight of data for rapid global warming ocurring is overwhelming, the case for a human component very nearly so.

Let me ask, though: What would consist of incontrovertible evidence of global warming that would satisfy you? 

Ich geh' in Flammen auf....