Global Warming Has Been Refuted

[Heartfout]

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?

Big Brother is a mistake in and by itself: it's a shite program. Moving on.

[Kiumaru]

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?

Your comments don't really add to the discussion, you know.

[Macai XXXVIII]

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.

Uhm, if the top people are censoring contrary evidence now on a given subject, it really calls into question whether or not they were censoring contrary evidence then.

[Heartfout]

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.

And you also don't seem to know what the difference between the IPCC and the Hadley CRU is. You fail to show how far reaching it the conspricacy is as well.

[Kiumaru]

Macai XXXVIII

Uhm, if the top people are censoring contrary evidence now on a given subject, it really calls into question whether or not they were censoring contrary evidence then.

This still doesn't prove that there is a sufficient number of people attempting this. It's just pointing to some cases in which it happened. If three people in a crowd start vandalizing things, do you state that the entire crowd is vandalizing?

[Darkphantom]

So a couple of fishy experts have been uncovered and obviously that invalidates every single scientist globally and every single peer reviewed paper ever published on the subject?

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

And the evidence isn't verifiable sorry to be picky but those emails could have been tampered with that's why you ought to go the source of the link and those experts and there claims and ho's**t actually verify what they were playing at.

[marinebase7]

Darkphantom

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

No... but I will smear them for lying at me! Those bastards!! Don't they know only the government can do that ?!?!

[Macai XXXVIII]

Darkphantom

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

No, I'm not smearing every scientist - just the IPCC.

[Macai XXXVIII]

Kiumaru

Macai XXXVIII

Uhm, if the top people are censoring contrary evidence now on a given subject, it really calls into question whether or not they were censoring contrary evidence then.

This still doesn't prove that there is a sufficient number of people attempting this. It's just pointing to some cases in which it happened. If three people in a crowd start vandalizing things, do you state that the entire crowd is vandalizing?

You keep pretending that these are just some random people in the scientific community. They're not. It'd be more apt to compare this scenario to leaders of a mob lighting a building on fire and then commanding the people they lead to tell the police that it was actually Santa Clause that set the building on fire.

[Heartfout]

Does anyone know what two reports they are refering to in the article?

[Elazar]

"Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."
and we know these aren't faked documents because...? We know these aren't bad data because...(esp when methodology of the study probably isn't outlined in the data themselves)?

hype hype hype

[Kiumaru]

Macai XXXVIII

Darkphantom

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

No, I'm not smearing every scientist - just the IPCC.

Except that it was not within the IPCC that this occurred. It was within another organization.

Macai XXXVIII

You keep pretending that these are just some random people in the scientific community. They're not. It'd be more apt to compare this scenario to leaders of a mob lighting a building on fire and then commanding the people they lead to tell the police that it was actually Santa Clause that set the building on fire.

Oh? Are these people really that "high up" in the scientific community to be called leaders? I certainly didn't get that from the article.

[Darkphantom]

Macai XXXVIII

Darkphantom

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

No, I'm not smearing every scientist - just the IPCC.

Right well you know what the IPCC dose right? It dosen't actually do any research nor even fund it just collects random papers and publishes them then provides the UN with there report which politicians of the UN then read.

So you know the fact that there's still near enough a universal consensus within the scientific community that climate change is definitely happening and near consensus if every academy of science is anything to go by that it is at least in part due to anthropogenic factors.

[Macai XXXVIII]

Darkphantom

Macai XXXVIII

Darkphantom

Your not just going to scrutinise those experts? Your going to try and smear every scientist in the world? Really? REALLY?!

No, I'm not smearing every scientist - just the IPCC.

Right well you know what the IPCC dose right? It dosen't actually do any research nor even fund it just collects random papers and publishes them then provides the UN with there report which politicians of the UN then read.

And there's a conspiracy to censor documents that prevent evidence contrary to global warming. Whaddya know.

Darkphantom

So you know the fact that there's still near enough a universal consensus within the scientific community that climate change is definitely happening and near consensus if every academy of science is anything to go by that it is at least in part due to anthropogenic factors.

Just so you know: if they're basing their consensus in part on the IPCC's reports, the consensus' credibility just got flushed down the toilet.

[Gerazzi]

I just think it's fair enough to say that it's suspicious, not yet refuted.

I still think it's the sun that's causing this.