Global Warming Has Been Refuted

[Macai XXXVIII]

Since there is verifiable evidence of pro global warming bias in the scientific community [1], it is fair to say that the pro-Global Warming crowd is now at square one. All past evidence is now called into question, quite validly.

Discuss: What the lefties will do to try and salvage their failed theory.

[Heartfout]

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

[Repellant]

Bias? In my scientific community?

[Keltoi Samurai]

your source is biased since it goes against the media hype and established spin, thus making it invalid.

if it rabidly defended global warming without evidence to support it, then it could be trusted.

we've always been at war with East Asia. Eurasia has always been our ally.

Big Brother is doubleplusgood, and is raising our chocolate rations from 7 grams to 5.

the war on Eurasia persists, but we're winning it with a little help from our eternal allies, East Asia.

now it's time for our Two Minute Hate

[Macai XXXVIII]

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

Doing so will require that they recollect all data and start from scratch, since there has been a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Organizations that participated in this conspiracy (such as the United Nations, parent organization of the IPCC) should be excluded from further discussion on the topic due to their history of falsification of data.

[Heartfout]

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

Doing so will require that they recollect all data and start from scratch, since there has been a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Organizations that participated in this conspiracy (such as the United Nations, parent organization of the IPCC) should be excluded from further discussion on the topic due to their history of falsification of data.

Macai, I am going to give you one chance. What is the difference between the UN, and the Hadley CRU?

[Kiumaru]

Macai XXXVIII

Since there is verifiable evidence of pro global warming bias in the scientific community [1], it is fair to say that the pro-Global Warming crowd is now at square one. All past evidence is now called into question, quite validly.

Discuss: What the lefties will do to try and salvage their failed theory.

Uh... I don't see how that means that Global Warming has been refuted. Merely that there might be people who are biased. By the way, there are many biases that people can hold and may act on. Does that mean the whole of the theory is wrong? No. There are people within any group that act out of what should be accorded.

By the way, that the voice of dissenters have been suppressed does not mean that evidence has been fabricated.

[Macai XXXVIII]

Heartfout

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

Doing so will require that they recollect all data and start from scratch, since there has been a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Organizations that participated in this conspiracy (such as the United Nations, parent organization of the IPCC) should be excluded from further discussion on the topic due to their history of falsification of data.

Macai, I am going to give you one chance. What is the difference between the UN, and the Hadley CRU?

Relevance?

[Macai XXXVIII]

Kiumaru

Macai XXXVIII

Since there is verifiable evidence of pro global warming bias in the scientific community [1], it is fair to say that the pro-Global Warming crowd is now at square one. All past evidence is now called into question, quite validly.

Discuss: What the lefties will do to try and salvage their failed theory.

Uh... I don't see how that means that Global Warming has been refuted. Merely that there might be people who are biased. By the way, there are many biases that people can hold and may act on. Does that mean the whole of the theory is wrong? No. There are people within any group that act out of what should be accorded.

These aren't just random people, though. These are top members of the scientific community. Just saying.

[Keltoi Samurai]

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

why would you reexamine it when Big Brother has already assured you of the outcome once?

are you implying Big Brother made a mistake?

how could Big Brother make a mistake?

[Heartfout]

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

Doing so will require that they recollect all data and start from scratch, since there has been a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Organizations that participated in this conspiracy (such as the United Nations, parent organization of the IPCC) should be excluded from further discussion on the topic due to their history of falsification of data.

Macai, I am going to give you one chance. What is the difference between the UN, and the Hadley CRU?

Relevance?

You have evidence there are some scientists faking data (and we don't even know the whole story about that, we need a inquiry into exactly who did what) at one institution. From that, you extrapolate that all scientists at all institutions do this.

That doesn't work, Macai.

[marinebase7]

Macai XXXVIII

Since there is verifiable evidence of pro global warming bias in the scientific community [1], it is fair to say that the pro-Global Warming crowd is now at square one.

Just because they have bias doesn't necessarily mean all their works are completely invalid (that would be ad hominem).

Quote:

All past evidence is now called into question, quite validly.

They were always in question but research has actually been showing that global warming is going on in the world in the past (just not for the last couple 8 years or so).

Note: I am not saying global warming hasn't been happening in the last couple years, I am saying that the research does not prove of it.

[Kiumaru]

Macai XXXVIII

Kiumaru

Macai XXXVIII

Since there is verifiable evidence of pro global warming bias in the scientific community [1], it is fair to say that the pro-Global Warming crowd is now at square one. All past evidence is now called into question, quite validly.

Discuss: What the lefties will do to try and salvage their failed theory.

Uh... I don't see how that means that Global Warming has been refuted. Merely that there might be people who are biased. By the way, there are many biases that people can hold and may act on. Does that mean the whole of the theory is wrong? No. There are people within any group that act out of what should be accorded.

These aren't just random people, though. These are top members of the scientific community. Just saying.

Okay... And your point is? Just because some individuals "at the top" are suppressing some of the other voices hardly means that everyone does it. And your source doesn't even mention anything about a bias in the IPCC other than that some people are writing this or that in order to stop something from being printed. Doesn't mean that it won't be printed.

Heartfout

You have evidence there are some scientists faking data (and we don't even know the whole story about that, we need a inquiry into exactly who did what) at one institution. From that, you extrapolate that all scientists at all institutions do this.

That doesn't work, Macai.

From what I can tell, it's not even about faking data. It's about some people trying to censor the dissenting views and it's only really a select few, it seems.

[Macai XXXVIII]

Heartfout

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Macai XXXVIII

Heartfout

Reexamine the evidence to ensure it is valid?

Doing so will require that they recollect all data and start from scratch, since there has been a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. Organizations that participated in this conspiracy (such as the United Nations, parent organization of the IPCC) should be excluded from further discussion on the topic due to their history of falsification of data.

Macai, I am going to give you one chance. What is the difference between the UN, and the Hadley CRU?

Relevance?

You have evidence there are some scientists faking data (and we don't even know the whole story about that, we need a inquiry into exactly who did what) at one institution. From that, you extrapolate that all scientists at all institutions do this.

That doesn't work, Macai.

No, I'm taking the fact that there's a conspiracy involving the IPCC (which forms the scientific consensus on the issue) to exclude contrary evidence, and from that extrapolate that the scientific consensus is not scientifically rigorous. Thanks for trying, though.