![]() |
The truth about "climategate" appears to have its pants and boots on, finally. It's not going to catch up, but at least it's out there.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If you put noise into Mann's algorithm it still produces a hockey stick graph. This is Academia saying he didn't do it on purpose and there were no emails found that can prove he did. He's allowed to be wrong, just not on purpose.
|
|
It might be on Newsweek, but it is about the Times' retraction.
|
I was being snarky - but I also agree with bruce in post #647.
They were basically cleared by their own. Color me unimpressed. |
Climate change: a collective flight from reality
Quote:
I don't know the man, but he seems to make some very good points. |
They're good points if they're true and support how you feel on the issue. :haha:
The earth and the things living on it change, always have, always will. The whole global warming thing and what's causing it has become so political, I don't believe anybody anymore. But one thing I do believe, we're polluting this planet at a prodigious rate, and even if science, and it's mother necessity, allow us to survive, it won't be a nice place to live. I live in a rather unique spot in the burbs, that while close to the sprawl, seems almost country. But when I travel a couple miles into Chester or Philly, the blight and trash make me sure I wouldn't enjoy living that way. I find it easy to imagine that blight and trash spreading like a fungus over the entire country. Yeah I've driven cross country many times, and in the heartland where when your dog runs away you can still see him two days later, it's hard to imagine my fears becoming reality. Remember we thought the oceans were impregnable 60 years ago, too... and we were wrong. |
Quote:
|
Perhaps...
Then again there is this. |
Quote:
|
more food for fodder here ...
A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof. The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research. Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.” Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.” |
I think it's really terrific that in spite of efforts by corporate academia to cover up opposing data, that the truth is finally finding its way into the public eye. If it hadn't been for the internet, the ruling elite in the media would have quashed every attempt at truth.
Oh, and good job Classicman. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.