Bill Nye owns Heritage retard on climate change

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're saying "THE IPCC IS SHADY AS FUCK" not "THESE THREE GUYS ARE SHADY AS FUCK", do you understand the difference? You're saying you believe in the science of anthropogenic climate change, the exact same thing the IPCC says.
Click to expand...
Ah, I'll concede that point. If that's your mission, to get me on semantics, you win.

I should have said the people in charge of the IPCC who set policy and lobby for money were shady as fuck

. Can you agree the leadership and policy makers of the IPCC as well as a couple other US climate change leading voices looked shady as fuck because of those exchanges?

FTR. I do not believe inanimate objects can be shady in that sense, only the sun sense. So your assumption that I meant an inanimate object was shady, was incorrect.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
once again, ginwilly runs his mouth left and right, and then falls completely and 100% short on the one key thing: evidence.

asked to post the "shady as fuck" emails, the little coward retreated to his talking point dungeon where he flings terds at any passers-by.

just pathetic.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I'm wasting my time aren't I? Or are you under the impression the conversations leaked took place between a guy in the mail room and a lady from accounting?
Click to expand...
So name some names, your bullshit "the leadership and policy makers of the IPCC" is too vague for me to answer your question of if they "looked shady as fuck because of those exchanges". Who the fuck is "they"? Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme?

No they did not "look shady as fuck"
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So name some names, your bullshit "the leadership and policy makers of the IPCC" is too vague for me to answer your question of if they "looked shady as fuck because of those exchanges". Who the fuck is "they"? Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme?

No they did not "look shady as fuck"
Click to expand...
You state this without reading the emails. Your ideology and bias is showing.

And if you think I'm going to wade through thousands of emails again just to try to convince the unconvincable who made up his mind without reading them in the first place, you can get bent. I've already wasted entirely too much time on an insignificant detail.

I'm on your side of the important debate in this subject, now I'm left wondering, why is he so adamantly defending something he didn't read? I can only imagine the fuel you are providing to skeptics and deniers.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You state this without reading the emails. Your ideology and bias is showing.

And if you think I'm going to wade through thousands of emails again just to try to convince the unconvincable who made up his mind without reading them in the first place, you can get bent. I've already wasted entirely too much time on an insignificant detail.

I'm on your side of the important debate in this subject, now I'm left wondering, why is he so adamantly defending something he didn't read? I can only imagine the fuel you are providing to skeptics and deniers.
Click to expand...
Why would you assume I haven't read any of the emails?

Not only have I read a significant portion of them, I've read the criticisms of them, as well as their rebuttals.

You're the dummy who stopped at "they're lying!!!", as is evident by your beliefs while nobody credible is still saying the bullshit you're saying.

You're either too uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance the facts provide you or, ironically, haven't actually read anything you claim you have. I suspect the latter, as even after asking you to provide direct evidence of scientific or political manipulation, you simply revert back to "well if you haven't read it I guess I'm wasting my time..", when, I have read it, I simply disagree with the conclusions you reach, as do all 8 of those investigations that took place..
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would you assume I haven't read any of the emails?

Not only have I read a significant portion of them, I've read the criticisms of them, as well as their rebuttals.

You're the dummy who stopped at "they're lying!!!", as is evident by your beliefs while nobody credible is still saying the bullshit you're saying.

You're either too uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance the facts provide you or, ironically, haven't actually read anything you claim you have. I suspect the latter, as even after asking you to provide direct evidence of scientific or political manipulation, you simply revert back to "well if you haven't read it I guess I'm wasting my time..", when, I have read it, I simply disagree with the conclusions you reach, as do all 8 of those investigations that took place..
Click to expand...
I believe you have read the emails and criticisms your leftist sources showed you. I don't believe you read the emails. But as sheskunk said, it needs to stop.

So, the IPCC is an altruistic organization and the criticism of what was said in the emails is just parroting Rush Limbaugh in an attempt of Heritage and the Koch brothers to diminish AGW and not cut into profits of big oil. Oh, and FOX something or other.

Moving on.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I believe you have read the emails and criticisms your leftist sources showed you. I don't believe you read the emails. But as sheskunk said, it needs to stop.

So, the IPCC is an altruistic organization and the criticism of what was said in the emails is just parroting Rush Limbaugh in an attempt of Heritage and the Koch brothers to diminish AGW and not cut into profits of big oil. Oh, and FOX something or other.

Moving on.
Click to expand...
Poor deflection..

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process. The statement said that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges"."

"The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating:

For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

"The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change." They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."

Want some more?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
How has the IPCC shown to be "shady as fuck"?

I'm assuming you're referring to climategate, if you reached that conclusion because of something else correct me

"The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs, with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy. Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics. The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.

The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December. Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers, and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference. In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Click to expand...
So the CRU got caught falsifying their research and said it "merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas"?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
And if you think I'm going to wade through thousands of emails again just to try to convince the unconvincable who made up his mind without reading them in the first place, you can get bent.
Click to expand...
so much for evidence or citation.

all we have is a fat old racist southerner spitting into the wind now.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I believe you have read the emails and criticisms your leftist sources showed you. I don't believe you read the emails. But as sheskunk said, it needs to stop.

So, the IPCC is an altruistic organization and the criticism of what was said in the emails is just parroting Rush Limbaugh in an attempt of Heritage and the Koch brothers to diminish AGW and not cut into profits of big oil. Oh, and FOX something or other.

Moving on.
Click to expand...
Argumentum ad temperantium.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padarebater2 said:
Why would you assume I haven't read any of the emails?

Not only have I read a significant portion of them, I've read the criticisms of them, as well as their rebuttals.

You're the dummy who stopped at "they're lying!!!", as is evident by your beliefs while nobody credible is still saying the bullshit you're saying.

You're either too uncomfortable with the cognitive dissonance the facts provide you or, ironically, haven't actually read anything you claim you have. I suspect the latter, as even after asking you to provide direct evidence of scientific or political manipulation, you simply revert back to "well if you haven't read it I guess I'm wasting my time..", when, I have read it, I simply disagree with the conclusions you reach, as do all 8 of those investigations that took place..
Click to expand...
Goddamn you are thick. He never said they manipulated the data
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top