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.
The same report said 62% of Americans trust television weather reporters on climate change far more than they do climate scientists....This says a lot more about the intellect of most Americans than it does about science....Most Americans also believe that some magical sky daddy created and controls everything, so I'm not surprised that they prefer their fantasies over facts.
or maybe it says the American people are paying attention and have seen the shenanigans by climate scientists (climategate emails etc) and realize these guys are playing us for fools?
Man made Climate change believers are no different than certain people in primitive times sacrificing select virgins to appease their God. They thought the could bring the rain, etc by sacricing a virgin. Today they think they can modifiy the climate by sacrificing your virgin.
Actually you're completely wrong. Scientific research is very, very different from superstitious nonsense. Perhaps you're thinking of the way Republicans react to drought by praying for rain. Or maybe not. But that's superstitious nonsense regardless of what you're thinking.
or maybe it says the American people are paying attention and have seen the shenanigans by climate scientists (climategate emails etc) and realize these guys are playing us for fools?
As if that's difficult.
I've already proven right-wing claims about 'climategate' have no merit. I'll do again if you like. I'm more interested in this "etc." of yours. Feel free to elucidate.
I've already proven right-wing claims about 'climategate' have no merit. I'll do again if you like. I'm more interested in this "etc." of yours. Feel free to elucidate.
snort.
watch this really closely
I've already proven left-wing claims about 'climategate' have no merit.
looky there, it was super easy to type. we both make claims that neither can disprove of the other.
Actually you're completely wrong. Scientific research is very, very different from superstitious nonsense. Perhaps you're thinking of the way Republicans react to drought by praying for rain. Or maybe not. But that's superstitious nonsense regardless of what you're thinking.
and here i thought science (well the globe is gonna burn up and we are all gonna drown right in the middle of the worst drought in history science) was about disapearing the global warming event known as the Medieval Warm Period by finding a single bristlcone pine tree in the middle of Yamal to base your "statistics" on.
Everybody just laughs when they hear "Global Warming". Let Obama push this latest idiotic attempt at rebranding it, people will just laugh at him and his support will drop even further.
Nah, it's just the Dittoheads and Fox News listeners who laugh. They're not that smart to begin with.
I've already proven left-wing claims about 'climategate' have no merit.
looky there, it was super easy to type. we both make claims that neither can disprove of the other.
Of course I can prove you're a liar.
Quote:
In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:
In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.
I realize that to a right-wing denialist this just means the conspiracy reaches farther than they thought, but who cares about that? Moon hoax theorists and holocaust deniers say the same thing. To a conspiracy theorist, evidence against a conspiracy is proof of conspiracy.
I no clmate change advocate but that seems like saying the news presenter actually know what it was like being on ground at event he presents. But then think any news person is expert on anything often is plain ole poltical belief really.
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.
