Originally posted by Rene-ClaudeAre you still on that bandwagon, despite the fact that the data supporting your view has been proven to have been distorted by scientists with an agenda to protect their position in their funding list?
Are there any climate change sceptics left on the east coast of the USA?
Originally posted by acb123Proven? Are you on the 'guilty because it supports my viewpoint' bandwagon?
Are you still on that bandwagon, despite the fact that the data supporting your view has been proven to have been distorted by scientists with an agenda to protect their position in their funding list?
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm not a scientist, and I have no set view, but it would seem to me that the climate change community have been terminally damaged by the dishonesty of the scientists who distorted the data to support their assertion that the world is heading towards disaster due to human activity. There are many equally qualified scientists who dispute this view, but we never hear their opinions.
Proven? Are you on the 'guilty because it supports my viewpoint' bandwagon?
Originally posted by acb123My point is that the distortion of the data is yet to be proven, only its being withheld is known to be true. Pending investigation and the depth to which any tampering actually supports or undermines climate change, it would be more sensible to suggest purely that the scientists made errors in judgement about the importance of their funding/technologies over the outcome of their research.
I'm not a scientist, and I have no set view, but it would seem to me that the climate change community have been terminally damaged by the dishonesty of the scientists who distorted the data to support their assertion that the world is heading towards disaster due to human activity. There are many equally qualified scientists who dispute this view, but we never hear their opinions.
Originally posted by acb123there are like 8½ crackpots with heavy ties to either oil industry or creationism. against a consensus of thousands.
...There are many equally qualified scientists who dispute this view, but we never hear their opinions.
'whether or not' was discussed in the science world in the 80's, after which the issue has been strictly about 'how soon'.
Originally posted by StarrmanGood luck with that. Personally, I view the whole thing as tainted, but your opinion is as valid as mine.
My point is that the distortion of the data is yet to be proven, only its being withheld is known to be true. Pending investigation and the depth to which any tampering actually supports or undermines climate change, it would be more sensible to suggest purely that the scientists made errors in judgement about the importance of their funding/technologies over the outcome of their research.
Originally posted by wormwoodHow on earth do you get half a scientist??? To quote Winston Churchill, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics !! All that the undecided sector want is a balanced view, with both sides of the argument given equal voice.
there are like 8½ crackpots with heavy ties to either oil industry or creationism. against a consensus of thousands.
'whether or not' was discussed in the science world in the 80's, after which the issue has been strictly about 'how soon'.
Originally posted by acb123the miracle of peer review happens as follows: you write a detailed article describing how you got to your conclusions. then a bunch of experts on the same field review it, to make sure proper methodology is used. if the methodology is found lacking, they ask the writer to clarify the points. if he can't spit out proper science, the study doesn't get published. if he can, it gets published. at no point are opinions considered, only sound methodology.
...with both sides of the argument given equal voice.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt is quite entertaining to see junk science defended. These bozos can hardly forecast the weekend weather yet we were supposed to buy their far reaching long term predictions? This is only the tip of the iceberg. It takes greater faith to belive what you belive in than believing in creationism quite frankly. Perhaps Scott Borwn's Mass. victory was global warming as well as the Haiti earthquake, Taylor Swift's grammy's, ad nauseam. Keep it up guys. Global warmists are by far the most amusing moonbats!
My point is that the distortion of the data is yet to be proven, only its being withheld is known to be true. Pending investigation and the depth to which any tampering actually supports or undermines climate change, it would be more sensible to suggest purely that the scientists made errors in judgement about the importance of their funding/technologies over the outcome of their research.
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI take it you live somewhere south? it doesn't look so silly to us who used to have cold winters with loads of snow in our childhood, yet nowadays the temperature drops hardly below zero and most winters are 'black' (meaning no snow). the difference is staggering. after twenty years of hardly a winter only a moron would persist living in denial.
It is quite entertaining to see junk science defended. These bozos can hardly forecast the weekend weather yet we were supposed to buy their far reaching long term predictions? This is only the tip of the iceberg. It takes greater faith to belive what you belive in than believing in creationism quite frankly. Perhaps Scott Borwn's Mass. victory was glob grammy's, ad nauseam. Keep it up guys. Global warmists are by far the most amusing moonbats!
Originally posted by wormwoodyes, but the topic is Climate Science, they do things rather differently.
the miracle of peer review happens as follows: you write a detailed article describing how you got to your conclusions. then a bunch of experts on the same field review it, to make sure proper methodology is used. if the methodology is found lacking, they ask the writer to clarify the points. if he can't spit out proper science, the study doesn't get publis ...[text shortened]... ed. if he can, it gets published. at no point are opinions considered, only sound methodology.