AE 87
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 13,030
The Liberal Fundamentalists won't hear it. The millions from big business corrupt science but the billions from big gov are pure.
http://www.infowars.com/youtube-blocks-polar-bear-explosion/
Not too surprising Google / boobtube would censor contributors they don't agree with.
Maybe it is just me but I don't always immediately assume there is a conspiracy. Several reputable groups have documented the stress polar bears are under including Columbia University, National Geographic, Alaska wildlife management, WWF and many more.
I think the problem is in how one interprets certain data as well as what data one considers to be significant indicators of problems. The BBC did a good documentary on this. Its pretty easy to find.
There was an international treaty to ban polar bear hunting in 1973 which has caused the number of polar bears to slowly climb from previously critical levels. But that is not the only way to measure the health of the population.
Good lord....the more I read the more skeptical I have to be...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/
Seems to be questionable science at best and outright fraudulent BS at worst. Yet that is what we are spending hundreds of billions on to combat.
This is where you lose me every time.Liberal Fundamentalists
This is where you lose me every time.
I don't mind looking at different viewpoints. I grew up in a family that encouraged this. But to characterize everyone who is on the other side of an argument as either part of a huge world wide conspiracy or that they are part of some religious cult group, just leaves me cold. That is where you lose me every time and I take what you say much less seriously.
Sorry, just being honest.
There you go again.That you choose to create this straw man rather than responding to the issues raised suggests that you fit the definition, though.
There you go again.
I find that on this topic you tend to argue from your premise. Rightly or wrongly you have convinced me that there is no amount of evidence that would ever change your mind. Talk about a fundamentalist.....
See, you can't help yourself.All I've said is that the hiatus was not predicted by alarmists, so I find their resets less convincing. Also, I actually form my own opinion on e-mails rather than trusting those who profit by alarmism.
See, you can't help yourself.
You start with the premise that those who disagree with you are alarmists. Then you throw in conspiracies and secret government plots. You only want to discuss data that is presented in a way that reinforces the position you have already taken.
Frankly, I find you completely closed minded to an open debate on this topic.
But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed with the idea that you simply have a lot of passion for this topic and you are understandably a little twisted over it because so many people don't take you seriously about it. So, let's do an experiment. I am going to list a group of organizations that have weighed in on the "climategate email" topic or at least have settled on a scientific opinion regarding anthropocentric climate change. You pick out the organizations that you either trust on this topic or that you feel are dealing with it in good faith. Out of 16, surely you can find five or six you can trust to be dealing with this in good faith.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
NOAA
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Penn State University
National Science Foundation
National Geographic
The Weather Channel
Environmental Protection Agency
Factcheck.org
Politifact.org
The Annenberg Foundation
Centers for Disease Control
The U.S. Department of Defense
The American Medical Association