You know, thats marijuana smoke they are poisoning us with.
Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.
- Thread starter jahbrudda
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1029/JC080i003p00366
aircraft condensation trails are NOT the result of spraying anything
the above article discusses contrails photographed from a satellite in 1972 for fuck's sake.
how long has this conspiracy been active?
why hasnt it produced whatever mysterious (and presumably nefarious) effect its shadowy masterminds intend yet?
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So
But you think ACC is a conspiracy by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, including 34 national academies and NASA to raise your taxes...
Now that takes the cake.
So you ridicule a conspiracy theory because there is no evidence to support it...
But you think ACC is a conspiracy by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, including 34 national academies and NASA to raise your taxes...
Now that takes the cake.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
there is ZERO evidence that "chemtrails" are real, theres a LOT of evidence that "ACC/Globalwarming" is a politically motivated hysteria.So
So you ridicule a conspiracy theory because there is no evidence to support it...
But you think ACC is a conspiracy by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists, including 34 national academies and NASA to raise your taxes...
Now that takes the cake.
but it's so much easier to ad hom your way out of a sticky situation, and claim the doubters are "denialists" on par with holocaust deniers and other such frootloops than to face the thought that maybe you have been duped.
Psst... they did it before.
rachel carson admitted she got all the data for "silent spring" from her own fevered imagination, resulting in 20 years of inaction on the real culprit for egg shell thinning: Mercury Dumping.
"the great garbage crisis" was admitted to be a pile of bullshit fabricated by an EPA bureaucrat on a deadline, who simply invented the statistics he used to pad his report
"the population bomb" was admitted to be a fiction by the authors, who claimed they only made up the numbers, and created an elaborate hoax "for the greater good"
i could go on, but youre not worth the effort.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
??Why aren't all the polar bears dead?
so either HAARP is a sinister doomsday device and chemtrails are real, or polar bears must be extinct.
false dilemmas must be in fashion.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Cite something relevant. Show that research which has been pivotal was biased. Be sure to notify NASA.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Or maybe the fear of all the polar bears disappearing and chemtrails all fall under the same category as "Nonsense".
How can a person try to convince others that the world is going to boil over and not also believe chemtrails are real? They're all a bunch of kooks.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
An article that is not written by a climatologist or peer reviewed is not relevant. So what exactly is your push here? Are you positing that tree ring research is biased because Joanne Nova says so?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, exonerated completely by almost a dozen independent investigations you retard.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
TATS PART OF DA CONPIRACEE!!!! TEH GUVMINT WOANT ALLLOW THEM STUDEEEEZ!! ITS ALL HOAXORZ!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
the dendrochronolgy was deliberately falsified to create the results desired by the authors.
http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/09/climategate-part-one-overview-tree-rings-and-the-divergence-problem-data-manipulation/
mann, et al also actively suppressed PEER REVIEWED STUDIES which didnt support their narrative, deliberately corrupting the process for their own ends.
it's all in their e-mails, but you dont want to hear it.
thats your problem.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So
Actively suppressed peer reviewed studies eh?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yep.
they even went so far as to imply that some journals had been "hijacked by deniers" because they published articles which didnt fit the narrative.
"The Soon Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at
Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas unfortunately
I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at
Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”)" ~Mann in his own e-mails
he goes on to babble:
"I told Mike (MacCracken) that I believed our only choice was to ignore this
paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial boar" ~Mann Again.
"My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—
take over a journal!" ~Mann just cant shut up
he was trying to start a witch hunt because everybody doesnt simply believe what he tells em when he tries to "Hide the decline"
and hey, look, you and bucklefuckle ride the same horse, just less expertly.
Last edited:
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Is this a peer reviewed email?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Is it scientific to reject information simply because it does not fit your pre-conceived hypothesis?
I am referring to both you and the global warming community here, more about you though.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I rejected the argument because it was a bunch of emails copy/pasted to a denier blog with an article written by someone who is not an expert. It had nothing to do with preconceived notions.