Climate-gate: Science not faked, but not pretty (ethical, dollar, leader)
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.
This is a wonderful example of a AGW sheeple. Totally ignorant of the facts, gets her info directly from places like Greenpeace and is totally surprised of the list of facts he gives her.
The question is if global warming is primarily or at least being edged on significantly due to mankind's pollution, from industrial, power generation, & transportation activities, etc. True, the planet would be better off if we did not create such byproducts and waste - and I am personally doing much to reduce, reuse, and recycle, both at home and at work. However, to state that these gases are the [or a significant] cause to this Global Warming is totally rubbish and BS. As a tree-hugging and nature-loving hillbilly that loves the outdoors, and desires a clean and green and healthy world, I also am a scientist/engineer, one that is cynical and doubting of "authorities" and mass media. With that said, here are these two links... please, take the time to read, to contemplate, to understand what is being said here:
How many young PhD's who've hooked their livelihoods to these people are looking at the potential of their careers tanking from this mess? It's called fraud when data has been deliberately "tricked" to match a hypothesis...I'll bet there are a lot of frantic young scientists out there wondering where this trainwreck is going to leave them.
And how soon before some of them start talking in an effort to salvage their reputations?
Last edited by Dockside; 12-13-2009 at 11:38 PM..
Reason: spelling
Honestly, a world-wide conspiracy of scientists? Really? But polluting industries with billions of dollars to spend on PR and lobbying - that's outragous. Couldn't happen.
I really wish you could see how funny you look.
Which is more believable? That a multibillion dollar industry fabricates evidence to keep the spigot open or that “liberal scientists” around the world are all in on a “hoax” as a means to secure more funding for further research? Clearly big oil has more to lose (or win) here.
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;
I see you are sight challenged. The supposed blown up portion does not even match the larger graph. They are not same. I can draw with crayons too and show it to you if you want? try taking a closer look at the pink and green lines
can we all just save time by assuming any and all post with realtive information will solicit the response of either its is conflicted, its been compromised, or that scientist is corrupt? it will be much easier
Honestly, a world-wide conspiracy of scientists? Really? But polluting industries with billions of dollars to spend on PR and lobbying - that's outragous. Couldn't happen.
I really wish you could see how funny you look.
What's to deny? If the climate wasn't changing (like it has since the earth has existed) that would be abnormal.
This amazingly ironic and I simply have to address it. Nomander and Sanrene, if anyone, are the antagonizing robots. Look at all the anti-GW threads on here. You will find them both at all hours of the day, seemingly all day long. The pat each other on the back, support each other like brothers in a fight together. Its comical. They speak as if they are super experts on the subject and put everyone down. I seriously think they are part of the anti global warming payroll. They sit on forums and spew out fallacy after fallacy about GW. They are political robots just like the birthers, the swift boaters etc. They are here for one reason. To spread doubt.
I have a hard time trying to figure out whether people like Dreamer are even debating the same issue as others when GW and AGW seem to be used either interchangably or without understanding there is a difference or erroneously.
Then throw in those who insist that those that doubt AGW (or even GW) also condone or do not care about pollution.
I must say the 'deniers' are more consistant,accurate and less confusing about terminology and provide better references.
I see you are sight challenged. The supposed blown up portion does not even match the larger graph. They are not same. I can draw with crayons too and show it to you if you want? try taking a closer look at the pink and green lines
How many times must you be told?
They didn't use the part with the "decline". It really is that simple.
I know some are mentally stunted when it comes to Math and Statistics, but understanding these two graphs doesn't require anything but observation.
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.