I thought you guys were "winning"...?

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
" for not a single leak to get out in more than 40 years of study" Uh...do you remember "climategate"? You know, where they got caught falsifying data?
Click to expand...
completely exonerated by almost a dozen independent reviews you fucking tardloaf.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Multiple instances of fraud"

Lets see if you can cite one..
Click to expand...
Someone cited a thousand of them earlier in this thread and you claimed it didn't count because the report was funded by someone you didn't like, so I'll not bother to do the work. How about YOU cite something other than an (failed cartoonist's) opinion poll? Since you are such an "expert" on AGW, you should already know about any claims of fraud, but you clearly don't. Or just dismiss them, as anyone one "of the faith" must do. It is blasphemy to doubt the holy writ of the prophet Al Gore
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are arguing the point of the flat earthers using this analogy, yes

f funding doesn't matter, why don't you accept IPCC's analysis?

m. In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."



Climategate was investigated 8 different times, and all 8 the investigations cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing at all
Click to expand...
Red1966 said:
Someone cited a thousand of them earlier in this thread and you claimed it didn't count because the report was funded by someone you didn't like, so I'll not bother to do the work. How about YOU cite something other than an (failed cartoonist's) opinion poll? Since you are such an "expert" on AGW, you should already know about any claims of fraud, but you clearly don't. Or just dismiss them, as anyone one "of the faith" must do. It is blasphemy to doubt the holy writ of the prophet Al Gore
Click to expand...
All of his so called citations were from left wing alarmist websites, they've all been debuncked numerous times.
neither one of these loons have a leg to stand on, polar bears aren't dying off, the oceans aren't swallowing New York, the polar ice caps haven't disappeared, there is indisputable proof the planet has not warmed in over 17 years.
But Al Gore is one rich mother fucker, now, who's the dumb ass flat earthers?
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You cited ONE peer reviewed study (accidentally and it didn't even support your claims) and you haven't debunked shit.
Click to expand...
Every one of your so called citations have been debuncked over and over.
Your big research study came from a guy who isn't a scientist, he's a cartooisist, lets see you deny that..
Admit it, is he a scientist or a cartoonist and blogger?:lol:
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Every one of your so called citations have been debuncked over and over.
Your big research study came from a guy who isn't a scientist, he's a cartooisist, lets see you deny that..
Admit it, is he a scientist or a cartoonist and blogger?:lol:
Click to expand...
You have not debunked anything you waste of sperm. The paper you're talking about has 9 authors, and yes, one of them is a cartoonist with only a bachelor's in physics. That paper was peer reviewed.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Furthermore, I have cited dozens of peer reviewed studies in this thread, dozens of position statements from major scientific foundations and even a NASA study.

You spammed a bunch of search results from a quick googling of climate denial and it turned out that in all of it there was a single peer reviewed study and it didn't even support your argument.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
You have not debunked anything you waste of sperm. The paper you're talking about has 9 authors, and yes, one of them is a cartoonist with only a bachelor's in physics. That paper was peer reviewed.
Click to expand...
Debunking the 97% 'Consensus' on Global Warming


The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/debunking-97-consensus-on-global-warming.html
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Debunking the 97% 'Consensus' on Global Warming

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/debunking-97-consensus-on-global-warming.html
Click to expand...
Friends of Science released Peiser 2005 and it didn't review Cook et al 2013, it reviewed Oreskes 2004. Benny Peiser retracted this study himself. It offered no new research and only reviewed Naomi Oreske's research.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Someone cited a thousand of them earlier in this thread and you claimed it didn't count because the report was funded by someone you didn't like, so I'll not bother to do the work. How about YOU cite something other than an (failed cartoonist's) opinion poll? Since you are such an "expert" on AGW, you should already know about any claims of fraud, but you clearly don't. Or just dismiss them, as anyone one "of the faith" must do. It is blasphemy to doubt the holy writ of the prophet Al Gore
Click to expand...
There are a thousand citations that prove there was any wrongdoing from climate scientists over climategate?

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct

The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)"

We've been over these points dozens of times in as many different threads on the subject. Where someones financial motivations to enact policy based on pseudoscience is important. The IPCC is not subject to this because it was developed by over 250 different authors from 34 different science institutions all working independent of each other all who reached the exact same conclusion. The IPCC is a compilation of all of those different authors and institutions works, that's how science works. What beenthere cited was one research paper conducted by a man with known ties to the oil industry, effectively rendering the entire study useless because of his financial conflicts of interest.

I know none of this is registering to you, all you hear is what you want to hear, that's fine, but don't blame your ignorance on valid science that is accepted by the vast majority of the rest of the world.

If you knew what science was or how to do it, you would already accept ACC as fact, same with evolution, same with vaccines, etc. Scientifically illiterate people don't accept these things because they don't understand them. Nothing new..

jahbrudda said:
All of his so called citations were from left wing alarmist websites, they've all been debuncked numerous times.
Click to expand...
When was the IPCC debuncked?
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Debunking the 97% 'Consensus' on Global Warming

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/debunking-97-consensus-on-global-warming.html
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:
Friends of Science released Peiser 2005 and it didn't review Cook et al 2013, it reviewed Oreskes 2004. Benny Peiser retracted this study himself. It offered no new research and only reviewed Naomi Oreske's research.
Click to expand...
Says left wing alarmist websites like skeptical science, you're sounding like a broken record.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Here you go, sign this global warming petition, like the rest of the left wing idiots did.
This explains how over 100k mindless dolts marched in NYC

 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Sorry guys, but this song pops in the head every time I read the title of this thread. Hopefully posting it will exercise the demon or torture others with me, misery loves company.:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top