• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Peer Reviewed anti agw science papers


The poster took the time to go through each article and comment.

You can't be bothered to even reply, explain why his comments aren't valid. Just a blanket dismissal and then you jettison out of your own thread.

It's not about science for you. It's partisan.

And like we've all pointed out, the first thing on your list is not a peer-reviewed anything. It's a debunked b.s. petition. Why don't you do a little checking on your sources? What are you scared you might find? (Exxon, coal, oil$$$)

You now have less than zero credibility here.
 

Now show how tha facts are wrong
 

It is in the courts

News Radio 1200 WOAI San Antonio Texas
 
bowerbird said:
There was no "climategate" because the principles who were accused were proven innocent by not one but four separate investigations
Click to expand...

No by loaded panels that support GW it was bias and a farce. The department that these men worked in investigated them for the school. what a scam
 
ptif219 said:
Now show how tha facts are wrong
Click to expand...

You have a knack for posting these non-sequetor statements. Either you don't understand the posts you're replying to, or you just having your own conversation with yourself.
 
hazlnut said:
You have a knack for posting these non-sequetor statements. Either you don't understand the posts you're replying to, or you just having your own conversation with yourself.
Click to expand...

Her/ His generic and vague denial does not address what the article says
 
ptif219 said:
Her/ His generic and vague denial does not address what the article says
Click to expand...

No, her faith that AGW is real, and that only through huge gov't control over our lives can we save, planet earth!!!
 
MrVicchio, stop being dishonest and admit that some of the papers you linked weren't peer reviewed.
 


Thank you. Good stuff.


The problem of course, is that you'll never convince the die-hard Warmers of anything, it is a matter of faith to them.
 
ptif219 said:
Just like the IPCC and melting ice caps in the Himalayas.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you even know what YOU are talking about?

Some of the links MrV posted were not research papers. They were basically memos.
 
Goshin said:
Thank you. Good stuff.


The problem of course, is that you'll never convince the die-hard Warmers of anything, it is a matter of faith to them.
Click to expand...

Hope you actually try to read them - if you do you will be the first of the denialists to do so
 
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
 
Manc Skipper said:
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
Click to expand...

Dude. Don't even read it. It's on a list it must be true. Never mind that what the link actually discusses, as Duece pointed out, is not what the OP stated. While Mr. V has a long history of posting things that either don't support or directly refute his arguments, many others simply do not even open links.

Someone posted it. Therefore it must be true.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Hey, Bower, it's a list, and that's good enough for them, they don't need no stinkin' socialist science! Facts are self-evidently confusing to them
Click to expand...

I know I get really depressed that people are more willing to accept the word of an anonymous blogger on the internet than some painstaking research that someone has spent years of their life ensuring is as comprehensive as possible.
 
Deuce said:
Do you even know what I was talking about? Do you even know what YOU are talking about?

Some of the links MrV posted were not research papers. They were basically memos.
Click to expand...

You want to talk about the IPCC using papers that were false as though they were peer reviewd?
 
GW has lost so much credibility Obama wants to change then name to Global Climate disruption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…