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.
IF it is so settled why would they rig numbers?keep opossing views out of science journals? and destroy emails? I would think that would raise some red flags.
ummmmm... it's a bit like Algore wanting to force a woman into "releasing" his 2nd chakra for $500. The libs are silly.
I am not well versed or a scientist but it has been all over the news and was part of the emails :
[LEFT]E-mails suggest climate-change data rigged (http://www.vancouversun.com/life/mails+suggest+climate+change+data+rigged/2279855/story.html#ixzz0t3grjRWs - broken link)
[/LEFT]
So how did the university and the left leaning leaders of the Uk explain that away? I just wonder if you think destroying the emails was no big deal and they have nothing to hide? If that is your position do you hold the same standard with Nixon who had Woods erase 19 min of tape?And old tricky Dick had nothing to hide?
We will never agree and its a free country,I see red flags and you see science.
If you go to the BBC interview he explains the use of the word "trick". The contention is that he "may" have destroyed emails, lets suddenly make it a fact. They went through thousands of his emails and all they could come up with is 2 questionable items? Lost in all this was the fact that his privacy was wrongfully invaded by someone that was never brought to justice for hacking into his emails.
What Nixon did is on another level and it was verified there is no proof that he actually deleted emails, just speculation. Do you think he knew in advance that his email would be hacked?? Tiger woods can do what ever he wants (and he has).
Politics is far easier than science which is why we have so many politicians or politician wannabees blabbing about something too complex for their understanding. I do understand the science on which the expectation of a warmer climate is based and let me say I am not about to buy any ocean front property in the near future.
For some reason, the conservative tendency seems to be to reject science - or at least be skeptical about it. I'm not sure why this is. The planet could warm by 10 degrees and they'd probably say, "Oh, the climate has always fluctuated throughout history." There's almost no point in arguing with them.
Skepticism is the default premise of science itself. It's the difference between religion and science, between belief and knowledge.
Pure conjecture and speculation on your part. As I stated before since it is clear that not one single critic can actually argue the data, one way or the another, your criticism is utterly worthless.
Sorry about your luck, but ... I'M BACK.
Not one single critic can argue the data? Total nonsense. The "data" is a fraud, which was why they had to select some, delete others, and massage the rest. But at the end of the day ... the one thing that CANNOT be overcome by these frauds and their idiot minions is that tens of thousands of years of climate data shows that rises in Co2 levels are a RESULT of global warming, NOT the cause of it.
And I've explained the mechanism of action to you and others .. and you disappear or change the subject.
That a group of frauds would "appoint" another group of frauds to "investigate" them is no surprise. That the second group of frauds would find no fraud in the group that appointed them is no surprise. What is surprising is that these frauds haven't found rocks to crawl under .. or that there is one single literate human being that still buys their snake oil.
Given that BP has caused more environmental damage in the last 70 days than human civilization has done in the past 200 years, I think you Co2 nuts need to adopt a legitimate cause. Try that one, and stop trying to tax "cow farts".
Not one single critic can argue the data? Total nonsense.
Well lets see:
Quote:
The "data" is a fraud, which was why they had to select some, delete others, and massage the rest. But at the end of the day ... the one thing that CANNOT be overcome by these frauds and their idiot minions is that tens of thousands of years of climate data shows that rises in Co2 levels are a RESULT of global warming, NOT the cause of it.
No critique of the data there.
Quote:
That a group of frauds would "appoint" another group of frauds to "investigate" them is no surprise. That the second group of frauds would find no fraud in the group that appointed them is no surprise. What is surprising is that these frauds haven't found rocks to crawl under .. or that there is one single literate human being that still buys their snake oil.
No critique of the evidence there!
Quote:
Given that BP has caused more environmental damage in the last 70 days than human civilization has done in the past 200 years, I think you Co2 nuts need to adopt a legitimate cause. Try that one, and stop trying to tax "cow farts".
No critique of the evidence reported by any of the investigative panels there either!
So, when can I expect anything other than ad hominem attacks upon the reports?
Quote:
And I've explained the mechanism of action to you and others .. and you disappear or change the subject.
Sorry, but I defy you to find a single post on this board or any other (I use the same nick on every discussion board that I have ever participated on) where I have debated the validity, or lack thereof, regarding climate change so I doubt that you have ever explained anything to me or from which I have abandoned a debate which I have never participated in.
For some reason, the conservative tendency seems to be to reject science - or at least be skeptical about it. I'm not sure why this is. The planet could warm by 10 degrees and they'd probably say, "Oh, the climate has always fluctuated throughout history." There's almost no point in arguing with them.
Reject science?
Skeptical "of" science or being skeptical "in" the science? Don't confuse the two. Being skeptical "of" science would be an irrational position, being skeptical "in" science IS the scientific process. Read the scientific method. Its entire process centers around being skeptical.
You don't create a hypothesis and then try to prove it. You create one and try to disprove it. The entire iteration cycle exists to find flaws in its position. If even one flaw is found in it that can not be properly explained and shown as to its discrepancy, you scrap the entire thing and start over again with a modified one. If a scientist isn't skeptical, they aren't a scientist, but a Bible salesman.
Also, I never saw you dealing with any of the discussions on the actual science in past threads. I find it rather political on your part coming here and then waving off skeptical arguments as you do. You don't deal in the science, but in political and social opinion.
I also notice you were very careful not to comment on the false claims of the investigation I posted. The investigator was wrong as is shown. They concluded based on only the information they chose to review. The above quote I showed points out where they were wrong and the information they chose to avoid.
The entire problem with the field right now is they are arguing political position, doing extremely sloppy science (seriously, the mathematical methods they use are beyond idiotic and without any founded or reasonable precedence), and biased focus on promoting their hypothesis.
You go ahead though and talk like we reject science, its a lie that makes one look not simply devious, but plain stupid in the face of the arguments out there. I hate to break it to you, but people aren't looking at these scientists acting in this manner with respect or authority, but rather half-brained devious twits so wound up in their political position that they can't fathom how ridiculous they look.
Reject science? You mean YOU reject science because you don't even seem to understand what science is.
Not one single critic can argue the data? Total nonsense. The "data" is a fraud, which was why they had to select some, delete others, and massage the rest. But at the end of the day ... the one thing that CANNOT be overcome by these frauds and their idiot minions is that tens of thousands of years of climate data shows that rises in Co2 levels are a RESULT of global warming, NOT the cause of it.
And I've explained the mechanism of action to you and others .. and you disappear or change the subject.
That a group of frauds would "appoint" another group of frauds to "investigate" them is no surprise. That the second group of frauds would find no fraud in the group that appointed them is no surprise. What is surprising is that these frauds haven't found rocks to crawl under .. or that there is one single literate human being that still buys their snake oil.
Given that BP has caused more environmental damage in the last 70 days than human civilization has done in the past 200 years, I think you Co2 nuts need to adopt a legitimate cause. Try that one, and stop trying to tax "cow farts".
I wouldn't bother with ovcatto, he always does it. If I had a nickle for every thread I ran him out of by simply posting the direct science and attending every fallicous point he made, I would be rich beyond imagine.
His goal is propaganda to discredit any who do not worship at the feet of his religious belief. Disregard him, nothing important can come from him, nothing.
I would say it is the left that denies science. They are more interested in politics not science.
Agree, but I would change it to: the left is more interested in feelings than science. Note the recent edict from Obama that NASA's primary focus is "to reach out to the Muslim world ... to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
Quote:
If the left was truly interseted in science they would not try to silence critics. Trying to declare global warming as settled science is trying to stifle dissent. There are some pretty credible scientists who do not believe it is settled science.
"Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes."
"Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
Exactly.
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.
