Global warming?

[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.