I don’t think the CO2 = warming hypothesis is complex. Even retards like me understand  the greenhouse effect. Providing in-depth research proving that relationship, taking into consideration all the many and varied climate influences, and combining them into a predictive model(s) IS a rather complex undertaking. And not something your casual observer is capable of doing imo, no matter how much “applied science” they dabbled with in earlier days.

Like I keep saying, such debates are done in the arena of scientific publication. If the denier position was so obviously correct, and so easy and simple to illustrate, then you guys would have mountains of research supporting your position. You don’t. so forgive me if you armchair experts aren’t quite as compelling as the real experts.

you most likely DO need a biology degree if you wish to show that evolution is false, however. which is my point. if the science of AGW is so simple and easily understood by laymen, why can't experts produce significant research that supports that point of view? (or is this where we turn to conspiracies?)

surely if every person who's ever watched the weather on tv can disprove AGW, those that study it professionally should be producing such supporting evidence faster than the great barrier reef can say "im dead"?

Albert Einstein was an 'armchair quarterback' when he made the theory of relativity.  At the time, the ideas of space time were based more on Issac Newton's ideas, and Albert Einstein as you should know, was told by his teachers that he would never go anywhere in life and wasn't accepted into the Zurich polytechnic school.

Isaac Newton was an 'armchair quarterback' when an apple fell on his head and began to develop his theory on gravity.

Thomas Edison was an 'armchair quarterback' when he invented the light bulb, which took over 1000 attempts to do so.

Should I even continue?  I don't know if you were born yesterday, but theories are not something that are made up on the spot.  The greatest scientists and inventors do exactly what you tell people not to (be sceptics), and they certainly didn't have all of the data they invented right then and there.

If you want to be a sheep for the global warming religion, be my guest.  But don't tell people what science is, because you don't have a clue.

How do you prove a negative?

If you claim the universe was created by magical elves and I don't believe you, the default isn't that it's true unless I can prove you wrong. Science doesn't work that way.

You believe human produced CO2 is causing the earth to warm.  I'm not convinced that that is the case. In fact, I'm highly skeptical of it.  But the onus isn't on me to prove your belief wrong. 

lol.

So now AGW deniers are Einstein or Edison? Hahahahaha. ahhhh. Hahahaha.

Can I just point out what should be pretty damned obvious to anyone with, well  a brain?

Einstein PRODUCED work which set the scientific world alight. as soon as you or frogboy or any other “sceptic” does something similar, then you might be able to lay claims to such ridiculous and disingenuous comparisons. Einstein sure as fuck didn’t sit at home all day writing on message boards (read: newspapers) with lofty claims bereft of any evidence, equations or testable hypotheses.

The same goes for newton or Edison or any other “armchair” analyst you might try and compare to the idiots within the denialist camps.

Thanks for proving my point: armchair experts are nobodies until they produce work of significant value.

And we’re all still waiting…

Funny, considering you've repeated yourself the entire argument.  You are just as guilty of what you tell others.

And the religious argument is a valid one.  People who blindly believe in anything are not even following what the scientific method says to do!  Healthy arguments and disagreements are always good if you can follow through on what you say.

It is far less of a religious experience for me than it is for you. However I will do what you are incapable of doing which is to admit that there is an element of belief in my position. I do place my trust in scientists in the field whose expertise in the subject I can not hope to emulate. Even though I do have a PhD it's in Electrical Engineering which is not in anything remotely related to climate science and I do not belittle the professional knowledge or the commitment to science that's exhibited by the "true" climate scientists by presuming that the “armchair” climatologist can hold a candle to their knowledge and expertise.

I have a job that takes most of my time and what little time is left is devoted to family. I do not presume that by googling a few topics and reading a few articles that I can dismiss the effort of people who make their living as climate scientists. If you can do this then you must not have much respect for yourself either because it says that any tyro that has dedicated some part time interest in the subject can easily do better than you in your dedicated field of study.

So if this is religious belief to accept the view of experts in the field while ignoring people who, if they have any demonstrated expertise whatsoever it is most certainly *not* in the field of climatology, then feel free to call my trust in scientists a religious belief, but if so then you really need to admit the religious belief on your part which places its trust in charlatans and people whose only goal is to make money off of your belief.

And what element of belief do I have, since you think you know me so well?

FYI, I don't believe anything unless I can't prove it to myself.  The same scientific experts cannot prove the correct weather, and yet global warming is a face for you?

This isn't about googling a few topics and such.  The people who are sceptical do it because they make up their own mind.  I have seen enough about global warming, global cooling, and seen enough TEMPORARY FORCASTS NOT BE TRUE to fully trust anybody who makes a theory such as this.

This global warming theory is made by humans, on machines that already don't correctly identify the future.  How can you honestly put your faith in this?

You can believe what you want to believe but really, what is your expertise that we should take your opinion over that of "true" scientists.

You're putting creationists and global warming skeptics in the same camp as how you feel about 911 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers?  

I think, for your  own sake, you should bow out of this discussion. I have little patience for insults being directed may way - explicit or implied.

I have gone out of my way to be civil in this discussion and I think any reasonable person would agree that my knowledge on this topic is not insubstantial nor have I earned the kind of thinly veiled scorn you are showing in your posts.  

I think what Frogboy is saying is that you are implying (very much obviously) that the people who are sceptical over global warming don't have a legitimate debate, or reasonable argument, or any sort of thing.  It's one thing to disagree, but it's another to act like you are right and everyone else is wrong, and act like people are idiots for even having an alternate opinion.

You need to take the advice you wrote above.

The arguments that the sceptics have made are to question the status quo, not to call the status quo idiotic, and act like their opinion is the only thing that matters.