Red1966
Well-Known Member
Oh. I insist you "eat me"
I thought you guys were "winning"...?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Multiple instances of fraud"
Lets see if you can cite one..
Lets see if you can cite one..
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
completely exonerated by almost a dozen independent reviews you fucking tardloaf.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
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
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
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?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You cited ONE peer reviewed study (accidentally and it didn't even support your claims) and you haven't debunked shit.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
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?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
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.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?
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, washere posts a retracted study.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
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..
When was the IPCC debuncked?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Remember when I said everybody is laughing at you guys?
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Says left wing alarmist websites like skeptical science, you're sounding like a broken record.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
He doesn't even realize how ridiculous of an argument his is.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Totally disproves ACC..