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.
You're living in a world that is the product of scientific observation, but you won't accept scientific observations that you don't want to believe in.
No, we don't accept observations that omit data are skewed to support an agenda.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and research the Great Sea Level Scare.
How many times in the last 15 years has the claimed height of rising sea levels been decreased?
I'll give you a hint: on average, about once every 3 years.
What was the original height? It was claimed sea levels would rise 3 meters. What is the claim now? Less than 3 centimeters.
What is the percent change in their flawed estimate?
The only thing they have done is waste a lot of tax-payer money skewing data and constant revising their estimates downward. They are the least competent scientists.
The do play the Orwellian word game really well. It's no longer "Global Warming" it's the grotesquely vague and ambiguous "Climate Change."
They're running the standard play-book: if you can't win, move the goal-posts and redefine the words to mean something else.
You're living in a world that is the product of scientific observation, but you won't accept scientific observations that you [/b] don't want to believe in[/b].
Don't you find it interesting that the Brits would lecture America about a TV show on climate change when it was their own lyin' a** scientists that made people doubt it?
"A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier."
We dumb ignorant Americans do know how much the BBC fabricates things though
Dramatic footage of a polar bear tending her newborn cubs in the flagship BBC show Frozen Planet was filmed in a Dutch zoo using fake snow.
Panorama: The BBC apologised in June after it was found ‘likely’ that Panorama had faked scenes of boys said to be working in an Indian sweatshop.
Blue Peter: BBC fined £50,000 in June 2007 after a young studio guest posed as a caller when the telephone system failed during a 2006 phone-in.
Children in Need: A fictitious winner’s details were broadcast during Children in Need on BBC1 Scotland in November 2005 after no calls came through from the public.
A Year With The Queen: BBC apologised to the Queen in 2007 after a trailer wrongly implied that she had stormed out of a sitting with photographer Annie Leibovitz.
The Liz Kershaw Show: BBC6 Music found to have repeatedly faked competitions where no prizes existed and that callers had been members of the production team or their friends.
Yup, them Brits sure do know how to lie to their gullible viewership!
You're living in a world that is the product of scientific observation, but you won't accept scientific observations that you don't want to believe in.
Just wondering - have you even BOTHERED to read the recent Climategate II emails (we KNOW you didn't read the first batch in 2009) that SHOW the collusion, the lying, the fudging of data, the uncertainty, the corruption of the peer process by the core cabal of AGWarmists, the admitted GARBAGE that has been taken as a consensus.....all for the "cause", as Hockey Stick Mann likes to call it?
Have you read what is actually going on behind the scenes?
Or do you ascribe beyond all doubt to the AGWarmist "belief" in a religious-type hoax?
On virtually every single fear mongering prediction, they have been colossally WRONG.
You're living in a world that is the product of scientific observation, but you won't accept scientific observations that you don't want to believe in.
Except, the problem is that you are not speaking of scientific observation, rather speculative observation based on loose correlation. A true scientific process is one that validates, verifies, and replicates its observational experiments in order to avoid the bias and the human factor of evaluation. For instance, the physics of light is a perfect example of how we can be deceived by the illusion of our senses and this is why we do not operate on assumptions and speculations as evidence of any conclusive means, hence the validation, verification, and replication process.
Oh, and maybe actually comment on my link? You know, the part where they mislead people into thinking the polar bears are in their natural habitat and not in some man made zoo with fake snow? Or is it that you think it is ok to lie, as long as it is for "the cause"?
The point is free speech. Free speech, if limited to totally proven facts, would eliminate religion long before global warming information. Just sayin.
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.
