Global warming?

[piercehawkeye45]

Classic, money means its a conspiracy, and a big one. Not only would they have to fake multiple sets of raw data, they would also have have a more or less global consensus on this.

I do know professors that are well read in the field (environmental engineering and water resources) and they will admit that many professors take it too far, but there is an obvious problem. This is also coming from a very cynical yet principled person who would never fake studies for money or grants. Also, basically can never get fired unless he sleeps with a student or does something on that level.

Also Classic, for your second link, its pure crap. Temperatures showed a 20 year period where there was no warming when we were also spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which is possible because there are multiple factors that go into climate change.

If you've ever read the IPCC reports, they are all based on probability. So expecting something to happen for certain is misinterpreting the reports.

Originally Posted by jinx

Damage control. Pretty weak at that.

Yes, because raw data is obviously weak...

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Classic, money means its a conspiracy, and a big one. Not only would they have to fake multiple sets of raw data, they would also have have a more or less global consensus on this.

Not really - the basic raw data needs to be fucked with and thats about it.

Also Classic, for your second link, its pure crap.

Opinions are like assholes ...

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Not really - the basic raw data needs to be fucked with and thats about it.

Yes, it is a conspiracy if you believe all the raw data has been fucked with. It doesn't come from a single source, but multiple ones.

Opinions are like assholes ...

Point taken.

Originally Posted by Jinx

Raw data? In that article full of boo-hooing and political rock throwing ("it's the right-winger's fault, they're suck jerkheads!")

Saying there's 15 ways to prove the earth is getting warmer and that the cause is 'almost certainly' humans isn't raw data.

Yes, it was a quote but it pointed to the fact that there are loads of raw data that still supports climate change. That is a strong argument. One just has to look at the IPCC to see that.

BTW, what is a strong argument against the IPCC? All I've seen are argument flaws and trying to disprove a single person from the entire panel.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

All I've seen are argument flaws and trying to disprove a single person from the entire panel.

Because he's the "hockey stick graph" creator, that so much of their argument is based on.