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 key word here "selective". Scientists who are bought and paid for by that greedy moron Gore can "selectively" put data forth that further his lie. I can pretty much guarantee that I am much more educated on the truth here. If you try really hard, I bet you could make yourself out to be less of a partisan hack and see the truth that man caused global warming is a sham perpetrated by the same kind of greedy criminals that you guys admonish on Wall Street
It's much easier to see the sham that is the denier community - they are sponsored and encouraged by fake-grassroots companies that are run by the petrochemical business. Unlike in your fairy tale, the petrochemical industry spends millions per month driving a FUD campaign (just like the tobacco industry did to try and sow doubt about the health effects of smoking, and just like the insurance industry is doing now on health care). I provide real examples, and you make stupid claims about non-existent conspiracies.
That's an asinine idea. Science doesn't work that way. Read this for a case study (where the insane Andy Schlafly demanded a scientist's data regarding mutations supporting evolution).
Scientists don't share data with just any moron who demands it. They do share it with qualified scientists with a demonstrated history of skills and publishing. The will share data with people who don't agree with them. They won't share data with a group of rabid wingnuts with an ax to grind.
...or they write emails to their like-minded colleagues to hide it, or delete it, or manipulate it, or just leave out the nasty bits that help disprove their theory.
It's much easier to see the sham that is the denier community - they are sponsored and encouraged by fake-grassroots companies that are run by the petrochemical business. Unlike in your fairy tale, the petrochemical industry spends millions per month driving a FUD campaign (just like the tobacco industry did to try and sow doubt about the health effects of smoking, and just like the insurance industry is doing now on health care). I provide real examples, and you make stupid claims about non-existent conspiracies.
Which "denier community" would this be? Would it be the "AGW scam deniers", the "AGW hoax deniers", the "Hadley CRU fraud deniers" or the "contradictory data deniers"?
“In a warming world hurricaneswillbecomemorefrequent and powerful”- AlGore
That's an asinine idea. Science doesn't work that way. Read this for a case study (where the insane Andy Schlafly demanded a scientist's data regarding mutations supporting evolution).
Scientists don't share data with just any moron who demands it. They do share it with qualified scientists with a demonstrated history of skills and publishing. The will share data with people who don't agree with them. They won't share data with a group of rabid wingnuts with an ax to grind.
Enough. I can't be bothered with you anymore. [ mod cut ]
The entire validity of the scientific method is based on the peer review. Only a charlatan or a quack would try to get around it, just as the so-called researchers at the CRU have done.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 12-15-2009 at 08:51 AM..
Reason: Personal attack.
It's much easier to see the sham that is the denier community - they are sponsored and encouraged by fake-grassroots companies that are run by the petrochemical business. Unlike in your fairy tale, the petrochemical industry spends millions per month driving a FUD campaign (just like the tobacco industry did to try and sow doubt about the health effects of smoking, and just like the insurance industry is doing now on health care). I provide real examples, and you make stupid claims about non-existent conspiracies.
You provide garbage (partisan drivel written by those with an agenda). I don't deny that warming (and cooling) happens naturally. That HAS been proven
You provide garbage (partisan drivel written by those with an agenda). I don't deny that warming (and cooling) happens naturally. That HAS been proven
It has also been proven (to the satisfaction of 97% of climate scientists) that man is adding to that problem - that temperatures are increasing faster than is explained by natural cycles.
It has also been proven (to the satisfaction of 97% of climate scientists) that man is adding to that problem - that temperatures are increasing faster than is explained by natural cycles.
No, it has not
Almost no meteorologist (which extensively study climate) thinks that man causes global warming.
It has also been proven (to the satisfaction of 97% of climate scientists) that man is adding to that problem - that temperatures are increasing faster than is explained by natural cycles.
Where do you get your 97% number from? Here's 31k who don't agree with you.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
ok, how vague can that statement be? "97 percent agreeing humans play a role." The question is and the debate is over HOW MUCH of a role.
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.
