• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38:145]

Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

:lamo now that's funny right there. Trying to frame your straw argument in the way you do here shows exactly what kind of deception people are up against with the religion of AGW zealots.

As soon as they start with silly "zingers" in lieu of reasoned discussion, you know they realize they've lost the debate.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

:lamo now that's funny right there. Trying to frame your straw argument in the way you do here shows exactly what kind of deception people are up against with the religion of AGW zealots.

It's a serious question. What's bad about planting trees? They make oxygen, I breathe oxygen. They remove CO2, which even if that's not a warming thing, less is good. They also look nice. I like trees, what do you have against them?
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

It's a serious question. What's bad about planting trees? They make oxygen, I breathe oxygen. They remove CO2, which even if that's not a warming thing, less is good. They also look nice. I like trees, what do you have against them?

:doh you're serious? :lamo that's just sad.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

It's obvious that when one of the founders of Green Peace is leaving his own organization because of fanaticism and hypocrisy, there is something wrong with the kool aid those dudes are drinking.

Climate change is a fact -- because the climate will always be changing, but it pretty much stops there. The IPCC is a UN organization pushing for global influence on policy makers and it's absolutely disgusting to see these liars parading as 'do gooders'.

Empty denier talking points. The Kochs aren't even having to pay for this support.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

And we should, why?

Spoken like a true socialist.

As a founder of Greenpeace, and the only one with a degree in anything remotely to do with the environment (PhD in Ecology), and as a founder who left the flock... you'd think he would be worth hearing from... regularly.

But... as you so beautifully and succintly reveal, there is no intellectual curiosity from your kind.

How narrow.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Which is just WND for liberals.

No... not even close.

DU is a bunch of one line wonders who believe the word owes them, and have brains the size of peas.

It is quick and amusing reading once in a while.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Spoken like a true socialist.

As a founder of Greenpeace, and the only one with a degree in anything remotely to do with the environment (PhD in Ecology), and as a founder who left the flock... you'd think he would be worth hearing from... regularly.

But... as you so beautifully and succintly reveal, there is no intellectual curiosity from your kind.

How narrow.

Not really. You here very little from the organization in general. You guys cherry pick people to listen to only if they match your bias. The fact is he doesn't at all represent the mainstream thinking on the issue. Of course that's assuming you're actually presenting his position.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Empty denier talking points. The Kochs aren't even having to pay for this support.

Say "Koch" a few hundred more times and you can hang out with Harry Reid!

I have no problem with supporting eco-friendly policies. I bike or metro to work while my car stays parked all week, I bring my own bags to the grocery store, I separate out plastics, paper, and glass from the rest of the rubbish and recycle, I turn off lights that aren't in use, and I always shower as to avoid wasting water filling a bath. I have no problem doing my part for a healthy Earth because it's going to be around for a long time and there are limited resources. But what I do have a problem with is hypocrite do gooders screaming that the sky is falling and striving to destroy American commerce in the name of bunk studies that make incorrect assumptions that only brainwashed zealots would believe.

In the link I posted, check out the full report. I posted just the summary since I know people have lives, but seriously, take some time and read the full experiments. There are *tons* of them and the group is completely non-partisan.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

It's funny how much debate over this is when, simply put, the raw data has become "damaging" to the narrative of co2 driven climate change.

It's a red herring issue to distract from real environmental issues .... Run by watermelons; as in people that are green on the outside, but communist red on the inside.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

It's funny how much debate over this is when, simply put, the raw data has become "damaging" to the narrative of co2 driven climate change.

It's a red herring issue to distract from real environmental issues .... Run by watermelons; as in people that are green on the outside, but communist red on the inside.
As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.

Which does hold some weight IMO...not sure how much though.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.

Which does hold some weight IMO...not sure how much though.

This is a myth created by the warmists cult. The truth is that oil companies have hedged bets... Ex; the CRU research lab was bought and paid for by shell oil.

The sources are the ipcc and where they get their data... The raw data itself does not support the hypothesis, so, by the rules of a scientific approach, the hypothesis is wrong as it stands and must be reworked or scrapped and rebuilt.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

This is a myth created by the warmists cult. The truth is that oil companies have hedged bets... Ex; the CRU research lab was bought and paid for by shell oil.

The sources are the ipcc and where they get their data... The raw data itself does not support the hypothesis, so, by the rules of a scientific approach, the hypothesis is wrong as it stands and must be reworked or scrapped and rebuilt.
I just wish there were some at least somewhat politically neutral scientists working on this **** - seems like it's all politicized.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

I just wish there were some at least somewhat politically neutral scientists working on this **** - seems like it's all politicized.

The alarmists have made sure of that as well... The only person that can oppose a climate scientist is another climate scientist, who also would profit by pushing agw.

It's like expecting a cop to rat out fifty cops, it foes happen, but so rarely it might as well be zero percent.

Yes, agw is a political science, not an environmental science, and it's a shame because there are real environmental issues.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

As I understand it, the counter-argument to "the data is against human-caused climate change" is that the sources are biased - funded by the oil companies and such.

Which does hold some weight IMO...not sure how much though.

It's not the only argument. But it's odd you can't see the obvious link between business money and the hacks they hire.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Your link goes to a site requiring a subscription, and your attachment ius invalid. Maybe you should spend less time insulting others.
Might one take your silent exit from the thread to mean finally you figured out the "glitch" either you or your browser was afflicted by? You either do or don't like cookies? Is this still supposed to be a WND article or just a subscription or attachment "glitch" only two posters at DP are suffering from? Probably best for you to moan about "insults" while throwing them around as other posters point out that you are killing the messenger you can't ID correctly. :doh
once again.jpg

In other news................this WND "article" is still neither from WND nor for subscribers only.
[video]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece[/video]
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Not really. You here very little from the organization in general. You guys cherry pick people to listen to only if they match your bias. The fact is he doesn't at all represent the mainstream thinking on the issue. Of course that's assuming you're actually presenting his position.

And you don't? :lamo if everything, and everyone agreed to the extent you try to portray Joe, the public polling would be in favor of it...it's not.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

And you don't? :lamo if everything, and everyone agreed to the extent you try to portray Joe, the public polling would be in favor of it...it's not.

That's faulty logic on your part. Again, only go back to how tobacco companies kept the public from accepting the fact of smoking being harmful. You know that the public can be just as wrong as any individual. And if you remember, I even gave you an article on this to read.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

That's faulty logic on your part. Again, only go back to how tobacco companies kept the public from accepting the fact of smoking being harmful. You know that the public can be just as wrong as any individual. And if you remember, I even gave you an article on this to read.

Well, I'm on the road, so reading lengthy articles for me is difficult. But, I would point out that disagreeing with you is not endemic of any faulty logic, that's just how you rather lazily try to stifle disagreement.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Well, I'm on the road, so reading lengthy articles for me is difficult. But, I would point out that disagreeing with you is not endemic of any faulty logic, that's just how you rather lazily try to stifle disagreement.

J, I, it was your logic that was faulty and I explained why. Have you ever noticed that you project what you're doing on to others?
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Moderator's Warning:
The topic: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

Not each other, not other publications, that is the topic. Now return to that or be punted from the thread or receive points or possibly both.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

It's not the only argument. But it's odd you can't see the obvious link between business money and the hacks they hire.
Obviously there's a link.

Just as obviously, scientists who study climate change have a vested interest in continuing their studies and finding supporting evidence - that's where THEIR money comes from.

I really don't trust any of em completely, especially on such a politicized issue. None appear impartial to me.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Obviously there's a link.

Just as obviously, scientists who study climate change have a vested interest in continuing their studies and finding supporting evidence - that's where THEIR money comes from.

I really don't trust any of em completely, especially on such a politicized issue. None appear impartial to me.

No where near as vested as science working directly for companies. It really doesn't work the way you suggest.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

No where near as vested as science working directly for companies. It really doesn't work the way you suggest.
Ah, but I'm lazy, and tossing them all out the window is easy.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Ah, but I'm lazy, and tossing them all out the window is easy.

Not so much, but I am amazed some see it one way, but not the other. as a likelihood, you've chosen the one least likely.
 
Back
Top Bottom