What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cassie Are you Ok?!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Click to expand...

LOL

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/413976_climategate08.html?source=mypi

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...

LOL, so much for the matter being "settled" by scientists, and the notion that any scientist that doesn't wholeheartedly accept man-made global warming as a fact is a kook or a quack.

They falsified information to support their claims, and squashed any peer review to eliminate full discourse and debate. When the debate is one-sided, of course youre view will be presented as fact.

LOL, now queue jack and his ilk to come in here and bust a gasket and call me an "idiot". After all that's what the scientists pushing their agenda called the other scientists who raised questions.
 
Eggs Mayonnaise said:
12740074044456121762.jpg
Click to expand...

So....you're just going to ignore Climategate, eh? Of course you are.
 
You're free to believe your sources, and I'm free to believe mine. GOD BLESS AMERICA! :bigass:
 
Name a paper that you consider legit, and I'm sure I can find a story. Those were the first two that jumped out at me. Surely you know that the Seattle paper is incredibly left-leaning.

I don't really care what people belive, until their beliefs become "fact" and start changing legislation that costs me money.
 
Here's the New York Times. Would you consider this a legitimate and unbiased source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=1

Not only did they falsify data to suit their 'science', but they planned retaliation against journalist and scientists who questioned their work. Come on, you have to see that this is a huge blow to the global warming alarmists!
 
It's a blow, but it doesn't make me suddenly think that anyone who thinks global warming is an immediate threat is an "alarmist".

I'm at work, I can't go searching to match you link-for-link. We just suffered a huge economic collapse, for which nobody in the private sector is taking responsibility. Do I suden;y think capitalism is wrong/dead? No. Just because the results haven't come back from the lab right the first time, doesn't mean you give up and pretend there was no problem to be solved in the first place.

And I would concede more if we were talking about something trivial. But we're talking about reversing man's desctructive practices to the planet. Does anyone really want to come down on the side of "what man does to the planet is GOOD"? I mean, c'mon. We've been spoiled rotten by a century of exponential progress and convenience. Don't you think at some point we need to step back, and see what effect all this progress and convenience had on the planet, and its natural resoruces, from which all this progress still originates?

Nothing is in infinite supply, not even the air. Conservatives just don't seem to like to think about that fact...it's such an irony: conservatives can't also be conservationists. It's like two sides of the same magnet.
 
It's me, I'm Spooge McDuck.
 
Oh hey I wonder what's going on in this nice thread about Cassie she's nice OH LOOK A STUPID ARGUMENT BLAH BLAH BLAH but at least I Love Cunt's avatar has breasts and Cassie is still nice.
 
A huge blow to "global warming alarmists" doesn't equal most of the data was faked. Being on the opposite extreme from the alarmists is just as silly as being an alarmist.
 
As I remember it at the time, there were two independent sets of data which had the same or similar results as the Uni of East Anglia. So saying that "most" of the evidence was faked wouldn't be true; it'd be one third. And that's before taking into account any arguments to be made that the UoEA didn't fake anything, but that their jargon was deliberately misinterpreted in order to discredit their results. That's what I remember the defense being at the time.

Personally, I don't really care if global warming is caused by us or not. In any case it's got to be a positive move to reduce pollution, which causes plenty of problems regardless of climate worries.
 
Big Dick McGee said:
No one says Global Warming is a hoax; however, humans' contribution to the gradual warming of the planet is way, way, completely overblown. It's negligible. We simply don't have enough recorded weather data to know if current weather patterns(not "climate", we haven't been around as a species long enough to study true climate change) are anamolous, or just cyclical. You all know that most of the leading "global warming" alarmist data was faked, right?
Click to expand...

I quote-unquote appreciate your contribution to the debate, retard, but you're not a scientist, are nowhere near qualified to interpret the data - which was not faked, incidentally, - and certainly don't have the intellectual heft or credibility to challenge the literally thousands of climatologists, geochemists, geophysicists, oceanographists, and other related fields. You don't know better than those people, and I'd suggest that you probably don't actually know anything at all about the science behind climate change.

The controversy has been almost entirely created by actors with economic interests that depend on climate change not being recognised, and it's almost entirely identical to the campaign tobacco manufacturers waged fifty years ago to try and kill the science saying tobacco causes cancer.

Congratulations, you're a stooge.
 
Oh, and shove this report on the physical science behind climate change up your ass. While you're doing that, keep in mind that it was drafted by consensus, so that it represents the most conservative view among the hundreds of researchers from different institutions around the world that contributed to it. The data that was used in the drafting is also nearly a decade old at this point, some key indicators, like arctic ice cover, are deteriorating quicker than the IPCC's worse case scenario projected.
 
I don't even know what this thread is she just looks hot I'd do her.
 
Fuddlemiff said:
Personally, I don't really care if global warming is caused by us or not. In any case it's got to be a positive move to reduce pollution, which causes plenty of problems regardless of climate worries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the truth regardless of whether we're causing climate change or not. The air is dirty, the oceans are dirty, shit there is garbage everywhere. It makes sense to try and clean it all up, and find new ways to do things that don't pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink.
 
Love, peace, and taco grease, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top