trolling trolling trolling...sparks wrote:...................................................
abdul's fat is rolling...
trolling trolling trolling... RAWHIDE!
trolling trolling trolling...sparks wrote:...................................................
Hammegk and himself win the Self-referential-post-award!hammegk wrote:More idiocy from fuckwits.
Naomi Oreskes recently made the excellent point that the time it took from knowing for certain that tobacco had harmful health effects till the time it was regulated was about fifty years.hammegk wrote:More idiocy from fuckwits.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101129/D9JPSJVO0.html
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/R ... age006.gifDrMatt wrote:http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/stori ... record.png
It is what it is.
it was convenient. is it wrong?DrMatt wrote:You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.
I dunno, but it isn't primary, and a glance at AppInSys's home page shows that they're spinning things, so it makes it look bad.Rob Lister wrote:it was convenient. is it wrong?DrMatt wrote:You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.
Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.Rob Lister wrote:it was convenient. is it wrong?DrMatt wrote:You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.
Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.hammegk wrote:Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.Rob Lister wrote:it was convenient. is it wrong?DrMatt wrote:You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.
Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.DrMatt wrote:Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.hammegk wrote:Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.Rob Lister wrote: it was convenient. is it wrong?
Which field of science are you active in, again?hammegk wrote:Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.DrMatt wrote:Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.hammegk wrote: Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.
That's on a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to.DrMatt wrote:Which field of science are you active in, again?hammegk wrote:Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.DrMatt wrote: Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:hammegk wrote:That's on a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to.DrMatt wrote:Which field of science are you active in, again?hammegk wrote: Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.
Actually, that is the claim by many that 'count' (make the rules)She says that people are claiming that it is "harmful." No. That's not the claim at all.
This topic/post was probably done right when I became a skeptic about the claims of global warming/climate change.robinson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:10 pm At first I thought the email hacking was a fraud, then I thought it was blown out of proportion, then I read them.
Then I started looking into the whole climate science, IPCC clusterfuck, AGW idea in general.
I even ventured into blogs.
It was ugly and disturbing. Not the sort of thing a scientist should have to go through.
Now, just when I thought maybe it was all a huge misunderstanding, a bunch of malcontents and oil company shills stirring up trouble, just when I was able to slip back into my comfort zone, where scientist are the good guys and skeptics are deniers, the final straw happens.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ticle.html
And I am like, what the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?
If the IPCC was a blog, you know, a bunch of losers sitting around writing shit, it would be like, who cares?
But this is THE panel on climate change. This is the big boys club, the United Nations, the policy changing reports, and a shitpot of money as well. Big salaries, bigger contracts.
So I now it looks like the email hacking was the Pentagon papers of this generation. It really is Climategate.
In a new and different internet sort of way.
The Watergate break in led to a lot of things. Nixon WAS a crook. He resigned in disgrace.
The Militaryindustrialcomplex was an evil bunch of bastards, the war in Vietnam was immoral, illegal and they lied about it. People went to jail, they lost power, a war ended, and the crazy people on TV who had been getting shot, mocked by the media and beat up by the cops, ended up being right.
The Climategate break in has now led to a lot more, and it looks like this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Now the media is in on it.
But it's different, because the internet has been on it for a long time. This has become evident from actually reading the internet.
So what is the real science hidden behind the bullshit?
And is there any reasonable middle ground on this one?