Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's so strange to see people sound off on this and know not a thing about it. Especially since the OP posted from the fair and balance Fake news.
No, it's really not. This is the net effect of the Dumbing Down of America, and only one reason why it's targeted and deliberate.
Oil companies make more money than any other corporations in world history, breaking earnings records every year. I understand their motivations. It's their water carriers who puzzle me.
And yet it was HIS work that provided "evidence" for man-made climate change
Love how you scapegoat oil companies, when they ALSO fund green energy tech your movement has petro dollars in it, don't deny it. One only has to see the countless commercials sponsored by ExxonMobile and Chevron that talk about alternative energy. How can you say that the anti-AGW proponents are funded by oil companies with a straight face when your side is also funded by them?
So now you believe an industry paid for commercial but doubt the validity of science?
In any case the "GREAT EXPERIMENT" of deliberately increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration continues. I wonder what the actual results are going to be.
If you live where I do, you've already noticed those effects. Those same effects are going to get worse. I've known for over a decade my eyes are not lying but much of the country, seemingly, do not trust their own set.
So far no one else has come up with a better excuse except "it's the oil companies, it's fear and/or paranoia". Funny that I stopped believing in global warming before I started watching Fox News so I suppose that fear/paranoia claim doesn't help their cause. Now anyways, any of you liberals find any wrongdoing on the transcript? Anyone actually READ the transcript??
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-30-2011 at 04:50 AM..
Reason: response to deleted quote
Looks like heads are slowly starting to roll over the whole global warming farce. So let's see, sea level rises were debunked, the Kilimanjaro glacier was debunked, hockey stick was debunked, "hide the decline" was exposed, and now CERN is suppressing evidence that links the sun, not CO2, to be the main driver of climate.
And you wonder why more and more people are growing skeptical of the AGW aka climate change movement.
Silly guy, we all know the debate is over and everybody believes in global warmage except corporations, their lackys, and a few low iq folks in merica'.
All this shows is that peer review does work and that no, climatologists aren't plotting together.
How so? If peer review worked, then his research would have never been published. The whole point of this issue is that it was published when it was in fact filled with grammar school level errors in its methods and collection.
So please explain to us here how "peer review" worked? Or are you suggesting that it "worked" because it promoted a particular political position that you approve of? I mean, that would make sense considering your level of understanding concerning the scientific method.
What this shows is that peer review has been heavily infested with politics (as we can confirm with the climategate emails as well) and that incompetent work is being pushed through the process to garner support for AGW.
My opinion is if anyone is going to sound off and say degragatory things about a scientists that the anti-truth/anti-climate change media is going to report then at least go to the source and read for yourself. If you want an unbiased version then read the actual paper and read the complaint filed on Monnett's behave. This is a witch hunt.
First is a link to Mother Jones. Kate Shepphard has several links in the article.
Next is the complaint filed on July 28, 2011 by PEER (Public Employee for Environmental Responsibility) on behalf of Dr. Charles Monnett.
Read it. It's very enlightening how the DOI sent two criminal investigators to investigate Dr. Monnett's math when they had not even in clue as to the basic calculations, and that was what they initially stated was the problem. Just read it.
Next is the actual paper that Dr. Charles Monnett had published in peer-review. This is what caused a man to be criminally investigated, have all his scientific work confiscated, be escorted from his job, and be told he cannot speak to collegues, cannot speak to media. The two criminal investigators who interviewed Dr. Monnett did not even know the difference between an observational note that is published in a peer reviewed journal and a study that is peer reviewed.
How so? If peer review worked, then his research would have never been published. The whole point of this issue is that it was published when it was in fact filled with grammar school level errors in its methods and collection.
So please explain to us here how "peer review" worked? Or are you suggesting that it "worked" because it promoted a particular political position that you approve of? I mean, that would make sense considering your level of understanding concerning the scientific method.
What this shows is that peer review has been heavily infested with politics (as we can confirm with the climategate emails as well) and that incompetent work is being pushed through the process to garner support for AGW.
Do you have any evidence that fraud was committed during the peer review process or are you just assuming that it was fraud and not, say methodological errors, because you are grossly biased? Or are you suggesting that peer review should be flawless? Because then I've got news for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so I suppose that fear/paranoia claim doesn't help their cause. Now anyways, any of you liberals find any wrongdoing on the transcript? Anyone actually READ the transcript??
