- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 27,101
- Reaction score
- 12,359
- Location
- Granada, España
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.We aren't faced with future consequences of climate change though... However we do face consequences by being dependent on foreign oil and by listening and implementing the policies that the UN wants to push.
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.
There's your conspiracy theory again. AGW is debateable in its degree, not in its entirety. There is more firm scintific evidence that is exists than that it does not. A few isolated examples of exaggerations and false statistics does not destroy the collected evidence of the vast majority of scientific sources.
There isn't a consensus though 31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
We also know that AGW is false, climate tends to revolve around the solar cycles and natural phenomenon.
Well, hey, if Al Gore's fantasy slide show can be presented as factual why not?this is still not known to be factual, yet you present as if it were, ...
It's hardly a random book. Ruddiman taught climatology for 30 years until he retired, and has better credentials than Jim Hansen at NASA. He also has no ax to grind or grant funding to renew, unlike the suspects at Penn State and CRU.edit: and you gave a link to some random book for sale at Amazon, that does little to bolster your case.
What if the evidence is bias and was produced to fit a desired result? We know that climate science is corrupt and serves political interests. The fact that the UN and IPCC pretty much refuse to think that they may be wrong or acknowledge other opinions shows me that they are trying to repress the truth. The climate gate stuff gives us an inside peak at what really goes on with the data and their calculations. AGW is a conspiracy theory, it was started by conspiracy theorist scientists and the theory was made popular because it serves political interests of several world governments and organizations (and political parties). Have you ever looked at the evidence against AGW?
Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, problem is, there's very little scientific evidence to suggest the human element has anything but a negligible impact on global temperatures; not to mention the fact that a number of top climate "scientists" have been manipulating data and trying to undermine the peer review process. That last fact should immediately disqualify AGW as being credible.
Did you know that 9 out of 10 temperature monitoring stations in the United States (purportedly the best system in the world) do not meet national siting standards?
Is that a problem for you?
I am not promoting the idea that human activity is the cause of all, some or any climate change. I'm not a scientist but I know plenty who do believe and have evidence to support their beliefs.
That a handful of over-zealous/deceitful (delete where applicable) scientists have exaggerated or falsified data has no bearing whatsoever on whether the accumulated evidence of scientists from 180 countries is to be believed or rejected.
As far as temperature monitoring stations in the US are badly sited, what the f***? How would I know whether that's true? How would I know whether that's relevant? I'm not claiming expertise that I don't possess nor claiming to know something is a scientific, empirically proven fact. Unlike our friend in Nashville.
I am not promoting the idea that human activity is the cause of all, some or any climate change. I'm not a scientist but I know plenty who do believe and have evidence to support their beliefs. That a handful of over-zealous/deceitful (delete where applicable) scientists have exaggerated or falsified data has no bearing whatsoever on whether the accumulated evidence of scientists from 180 countries is to be believed or rejected.
As far as temperature monitoring stations in the US are badly sited, what the f***? How would I know whether that's true? How would I know whether that's relevant? I'm not claiming expertise that I don't possess nor claiming to know something is a scientific, empirically proven fact. Unlike our friend in Nashville.
Please refer to IPCC.What evidence is that? Just curious...
Not true. Simple as.Except this "handful" of "scientists" are the top climate researchers on the planet, and are the most authoritative propagators of AGW hysteria. Many of the methods and data other climate researchers use comes from this cabal of falsifiers.
Just not a very relevant one.Settle down. It was just a question.
If it's proven that all the evidence of AGW is wrong I'm sure you can provide us all with that evidence.So you believe the lies of those who claim to be scientist even though it is proven their facts were wrong?
Please refer to IPCC.
Not true. Simple as.
Just not a very relevant one.
If it's proven that all the evidence of AGW is wrong I'm sure you can provide us all with that evidence.
So you believe the lies of those who claim to be scientist even though it is proven their facts were wrong?
It has not been proven they were wrong.
Ah, a lame appeal to authority. How stimulating!
More importantly, it hasn't been proven that they are right...
That's not how science works. The onus falls upon the AGW proponents to substantiate their own theory; it is not anyone's obligation to disprove an assertion that hasn't been proven.
Yeah, why go with authoritative science right?
You can believe what ever you want to believe, while we move on to get the job done.
If you go in for world conspiracy theories and time travel I suppose.
They have substantiated it, even Bush's EPA confirmed it, though he ignored their message as long as he could.
I think an interesting question to ask would be...Why would some scientests support AGW, and others oppose it? If the evidence for or against is conclusive, why would there be any disagreement?
They haven't been proven right. Apparently, you don't know what that word means...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?