Forums Register login What's New?
Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
Page 3 of 18
  1. No... he scouring the internet for sources to prove everything said here is wrong. He'll be back when he finds the sources to back his argument.:rolleye33:



    My guess is we wil be waiting a while.
  2. id like to expand on your qualifying reference to "macro science". much of the research done in areas like macro-evolution, geology and astronomy are substantially limited by the fact that the scale (often both time and size) are too big to allow for maximum confidence.

    it is not the fault of the researchers, just a limitation of the questions asked.

    in micro/molecular fields (chemistry, biochemistry, physics, molecular biology), conclusions drawn can more often be at near certainty because experiments can be done in controlled conditions (to limit variables) and repeated. a major check in place is that those that disagree can try to repeat the experiment. many erroneous conclusions (both intentional and accidental) are discovered this way eventually.
  3. What legs? Only among the same critics who keep trying to come up with something that magically makes all science invalid. This ain't it, you know. But you want me to address it? Sure. It gives you a chance to deliver another informative and intellectual, "You are full of crap" response.

    Tell me, which of the many technical papers confirming climate change does these stolen emails invalidate? Did they expose any bad data in their published papers? No. They informally discussed the method one scientist chose to publish his data.

    Most of the critical articles take the statements completely out of context and suggest that the scientists are deviously manipulating the data, even though nothing that they say is hidden, since all their methodologies are published in the technical papers.


    Also scientists use the word "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something", not to indicate a deception.

    If a decline has been "hidden" it is hiding in plain sight.
  4. Ahh, the third grade is still with us. Have you seen Waldo, yet?

    Watch and learn. No substance here at all.

    The peanut gallery cheers yet another failed attempt to discredit all of science. The gullibility of the political skeptics never fails to astonish me.
  5. Whew, you had me worried!:lol:
    It was bad enough when Elvis left the building!:dis::cry:
    I'll take my peanuts with chocolate please!:insane:
  6. wow! i had no idea this was part of the evidence of a scam. how stupid is that?!
  7. Bloviate all you want Red. Your beloved scientists have been busted. It doesn't end here. Hell of a backstroke you've got there, though.
  8. From the IPCC is filled with crap "science" file....



    So... if the IPCC's goal wasn't science... WTF was it's goals?

    Nope. No substance here. Nothing to see. Move along. Ignore the man behind the curtain. You are not seeing what you are seeing.
  9. How's this for IPCC "consensus"?

    The hits keep coming...
  10. these people literally believe they may be saving the world, so why wouldnt they fudge the numbers a bit?
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 3 of 18