echelon1k1
New Member
Forget innocent untill proven guilty... With all your liberal/democrate inferiority must have forgotten
Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you tried to string them up by their toenails for allegations. allegations from which they were exonerated.
you were holding them guilty even after proved innocent.
echelon1k1
New Member
Granted out education system is heads & tails above the US. I'd know.
Wikipeadia is not a source that can be cited in High school or uni.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you don't cite wikipedia, you cite wikipedia's citations. how do you not get this?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
well we have the fact then when an "alleged" controversy hits an organisation it normally costs them above and beyond their normal expenditure in answering said controversy
but aside from all that i certainly didnt just link to the UEA in the various exonerations
so are you going to adress the other links exonerating the UAE or are you going to act like a partisan hack?
echelon1k1
New Member
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224785/wikipropaganda/lawrence-solomon#
In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it — anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Minute-hand smoke is deadly but 60x slower. cn
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the only other one i could find info on was the last one, anthony watts.
he is the one who made up the climate denial website from which arcticgranite lifted that article. he also works for the hearltand institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank funded in part by the koch brothers.
what a miserable block of FAIL that was from arctic granite.
people should be better consumers of information and do some perfunctory research before opening their mouths.
he is the one who made up the climate denial website from which arcticgranite lifted that article. he also works for the hearltand institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank funded in part by the koch brothers.
what a miserable block of FAIL that was from arctic granite.
people should be better consumers of information and do some perfunctory research before opening their mouths.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you don't cite wiki, you cite the citations within wiki.
for example, one of the citations i used was tim ball's own curriculum vitae and writings. is tim ball a good enough authority on tim ball?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
just incase you missed my post and you werent trying to be a hack
echelon1k1
New Member
partisan hack hey? Fitting description of the obama brigade.
Ben Santer. Maurice Strong's scientific butt buddy. Both global warming proponents.
Santer inplicated in TWO data falsifications, both while at UEA. Like a decade apart.
No such thing as coincedences.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
thats the list of investigators from the first link alone
cannot see any of the names you listed in that bunch
going to need a hell of alot more handwaving for you to get this one to go away
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. I'm allowed latitude as I quote and cite from both views! I see later in the thread you assign fail because of Watts bias and D'Aleo's credentials. What really caught my eye in the article is the EPA's Inspector General basically saying yeah, we didn't follow protocol. The signers are pedigreed too. Fail not IMO.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
dude, every single person that signed onto that letter was funded by the koch brothers, exxonmobil, a chrstian creationist, or otherwise not qualified to comment on the issue.
you just proved the failings of the denial side.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
thats why you take the time go go read the bits that "wattsupwiththat" so charmingly edited out as they completely followed EPA protocol
"EPA’s peer review policy states that “for influential scientific information
intended to support important decisions, or for work products that have special importance in
their own right, external peer review is the approach of choice” and that “for highly influential
scientific assessments, external peer review is the expected procedure.” According to the policy,
external peer review involves reviewers who are “independent experts from outside EPA.”"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e0584e33-d3da-4fba-b95a-e93548105e09
its so easy to be folled when you dont bother checking yourself