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.
Such a disgrace, though this behavior speaks volumes. This isn't science and these are not intellectual supporters. This is simply a cult with ignorant fanatical supporters. People really are easy to manipulate. It is sad.
Yeah the majority of the planet is ignorant fanatics because they agree with the worlds leading scientists.
These two are like a tag team. They always post together to try make themselves look supported.
This image really started the hysteria from the believers and THE push for AGW.
This is just devastating evidence of just how much they manipulated the data.
even your graphs don't make sense. Look at them if what you propose was true the green would have fallen well below the other colors not be hidden. Use the reference on the side of graph
Such BS Political propaganda. [MOD CUT]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 12-14-2009 at 05:01 PM..
Reason: Discuss topics, not other posters
From the Associated Press, an article that debunks the latest crazed right-wing conspiracy theory:
E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
And,
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
What are the AP's qualifications to make such a determination?
And yet... no response from you concerning my rebuttal to yours. Sometimes I think people like you are bots simply posting drivel because you are paid to antagonize.
Did you read any of the issue with the IPCC? Please tell me you are not that biased that you won't even consider looking at information that questions your belief?
I read the claims of the AGW crowd all the time. I look over the science they claim supports them and weight what they are claiming. I cross reference their research and look for opposing stances on the issue before I make any conclusions.
Why is it that you do not do the same? Did you even read any of the links I provided? I read all of yours, the AR4 is familiar to me as it has been the topic of discussion for all those links I provided you for nearly 5 years. What is your response? Ignorance, stirred with an arrogant stick. /boggle
even your graphs don't make sense. Look at them if what you propose was true the green would have fallen well below the other colors not be hidden. Use the reference on the side of graph
Such BS Political propaganda. Do you and nomander work for exxon??
I see you are statistically challenged.
If they would have used the little green line after 1960, that is how it would have looked (a downward trend). It didn't quite fit in with the look they wanted, did it?
So they cut it off in 1960, made sure it was in the "background" and used other data that fit in with the trend they were looking for.
Even this simple little graph is beyond your comprehension.
Try this, taken from ice core data directly from NOAA;
What are the AP's qualifications to make such a determination?
They are investigators.
Of course, they don't have the qualifications of the anonymous GW deniers on internet forums like this.
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.