scholarly literature

You lost me at this. Seriously

Herein lies your problem.

so your professor is better than my professor because I like my professor more than yours and people like me like the professor too? This is your argument?

Not remotely.

The people who are studying and publishing on climate change know it's real. The denialists are not studying or publishing. They're making webpages and blogs.

You do find petroleum geologists, and Nobel laureates out of their field of expertise, and way past their use-by date that have been sucked into the denialosphere. But no one who is publishing in the field.

A model is only as good as the data you input. Omit data you don't like and you get a different resilt.

Do you know what a model is?

I think you're thinking of an equation.

A GCM uses equations based on the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to describe the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice. The temperature at an airport isn't an input to the model. It might affect the initial state of the model before its run. But the sensitivity to the temperature at one grid is negligible.

You are proving yourself to be a retard, and you should probably retire. If you don't understand basic concepts in statistical analysis, perhaps you shouldn't comment so frequently about climate data.

Oh the irony.

I don't believe temperature fluctuations on a planetary scale of one degree over decades amounts to anything noteworthy.

That's not what you said. You said "the nonsense that it's warmer now than it was before."

If you haven't missed all the evidence from so many fields of study that show the world is warming, why did you say that it's "nonsense" that the world is warming?

It makes people think you're an idiot and you have waste time backing down like this.

Let us know if all the volcanoes erupt or the sky falls

There's no relevance to volcanoes nor falling skies.

otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

Oh, the irony.

The Earth is billions of years old and has changed a lot, it's been warmer and colder.

That's right. By digging up carbon from the long dead, we're only returning the climate to a state that it was millions of years ago. So this will only negatively affect humans and ecosystems that exist now. Many of the long extinct ones will be fine. Alas, they're already extinct.

It doesn't mean much.

It's adding up already: Climate change is costing the world $16 million per hour: study

I've read many of your climate change posts over the years

The last 5 years, I read. Which is two more than I've been here.

The surface data is more reliable. I mention the satellite data because it shows that the surface data is not significantly distorted by the single station effect you want to focus on as if such this have any real effect.

The planet is not going to die in 2 years from now

True, and another straw man.

polar bears are not in decline

Not proven, and if it is true, it is because rebounding from overhunting is dominating the loss from increased starvation from decreased sea ice.

it's better to not be in an ice age than be in an ice age

True and irrelevant.

I think the weather is being used as a global warming con.

Meaning, again that you think the globe isn't warming?

You don't believe that species ranges are moving towards the poles.

You don't believe that glaciers are in retreat.

You don't believe that the sea level is rising.

You don't believe there mass loss in the sea ice.

How do you maintain such ignorance of what's happening?