Russians Behind DNC attack!

[Xaanka]

the global warming thing really opens up a bigger problem, which is a demonization of ideas which conflict with currently accepted theories despite the fact that our understanding of the world is clearly and evidently ever-changing. you're not allowed to question it without instantly being labeled a global warming denier. catastrophism in particular gets it the worst, due to the religious connotations.

but no matter how you slice it, physical evidence just doesn't align with the accepted theory of graduality in the earth's climate, nor the idea that global warming is a recent and man-made phoenomenon. accelerated or influenced, sure, but at what point in our planet's history has it ever remained the same? you aren't allowed to ask questions like that, and it's honestly pretty sad to me that the "best minds" of our world are so easily manipulated by politics and money. most people studying in this field can thank the currently accepted theory of global warming for the existence of their jobs & careers, so nobody wants to rock the boat. at the end of the day it's counter-productive and anti-scientific and there's no real way to deny that no matter what you personally believe about global warming. if you believe the current theory, shouldn't it be able to stand up to scrutiny and shouldn't it match physical evidence found on our planet?

statistical significance is also a good point, but i'll also point out that there's already been a few errors found in our interpretations of the ice cores, namely several gradual shifts which were later found to be rapid shifts when looked at under closer scrutiny. still not totally accepted due to lack of explanation, but the evidence is overwhelming.

we don't know shit about the planet dogs. like lol we couldn't even explain why there's so much water on earth until 2014 because we didn't even know about our own planet's largest reservoir of water. they used to say it was a comet impact until 2 years ago. believing any of this shit implies we know a lot more than we actually do.

fucking lol the currently accepted theory is that humans wiped out all of north america's megafauna during the ice age have you even seen population estimates for these animals? and you still don't think mass extinction and extreme climate change is a normal function of our planet??

[Daywolf]

There is definitely without a doubt no such thing as man-made global warming. I don't get it why people actually still follow that religion here in 2016, apart from mostly those with an agenda (globalism, redistribution of wealth etc). And the same leaders that promote this hoax also seem to be making Russia out to be our enemy that we need to unite behind them to fight. These doomsayers are leading us to an actual doomsday!

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is definitely without a doubt no such thing as man-made global warming.

Ok you beat me..

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

..not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok you beat me..

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

..not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

lol you literally posted two visual graphs that show conflicting data. the first one shows a 1*c shift from lowest to highest, while the second suggests a 6*c shift over the same time period. also just lol at believing in greenhouse runaway.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol old climategate junk. Hold the door! Hod teh dor! Hod... etc

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures

btw isn't it funny how they don't bite on your line until summer time in the northern hemisphere? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ...they go stone cold in winter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
/me does a little dance to hide the decline #2 vid

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol old climategate junk. Hold the door! Hod teh dor! Hod... etc

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller
Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures

btw isn't it funny how they don't bite on your line until summer time in the northern hemisphere? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] ...they go stone cold in winter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
/me does a little dance to hide the decline #2 vid


In other words as long as they fit the agenda. You sir, are pro-Corporatism. Very much into globalism.

Another BS added there "christian groups and denying evolution". You are not only for corporatism, but hard-left it looks. You're like iryd incarnate.

i was wondering when you were about to bring in climategate.. i would have bet sooner ! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There has been 8 different inquiries about these:
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK): ""the evidence we have seen does not suggest that Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process" and academics should not be criticised for "informal comments" on papers"
- Science Assessment Panel (Independant): "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."
- Pennsylvania State University (USA): "the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. "
- Independent Climate Change Email Review (university of east anglia): '“On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
- United States Environmental Protection Agency report: "The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues." In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."
- Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce: ""The [CRU] emails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses ofthousands ofscientists around the world that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result ofhuman activities. "
- National Science Foundation: "we have determined that these other matters are not
implicated in this investigation. Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed. "

tl;dr: nothing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh and i'm not pro corporations, unless you mean something else by "corporations".

your answer:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Xaanka]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i was wondering when you were about to bring in climategate.. i would have bet sooner ! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There has been 8 different inquiries about these:
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK): ""the evidence we have seen does not suggest that Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process" and academics should not be criticised for "informal comments" on papers"
- Science Assessment Panel (Independant): "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."
- Pennsylvania State University (USA): "the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities. "
- Independent Climate Change Email Review (university of east anglia): '“On the specific allegations made against the behavior of C.R.U. scientists, we find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”
- United States Environmental Protection Agency report: "The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues." In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."
- Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce: ""The [CRU] emails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses ofthousands ofscientists around the world that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result ofhuman activities. "
- National Science Foundation: "we have determined that these other matters are not
implicated in this investigation. Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed. "

tl;dr: nothing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh and i'm not pro corporations, unless you mean something else by "corporations".

your answer:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this post brought to you by the same pseudo who posted, "it's the exact-same-modus-operandi for christian groups and denying evolution."

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and i'm not pro corporations, unless you mean something else by "corporations".

Pro-corporation is just free-market pro-capitalism, all shapes and sizes, generic.
Corporatism, it's monolithic corporations funding the political machine and being given special rules that drive out competition. i.e. anti-free-market etc. They basically own politicians.
"Not pro-corp" is nothing, again generic, just falls into anti-capitalist, can even be corporatism which is anti-capitalist by nature.

In wikipedia it's listed as Corporatocracy, though correct by general definition, it's better put and often is said Corporitism, as it's more connected to Technocracy, the Technocrats, and as a tool of the Technocrats. Liberals say Corporatocracy (a disconnect from technocracy), when they bother to talk about it anyway. Most of it is controlled by few people, as well as for big banks, not including all rich people, but often very wealthy families are likely, usually old money.

[Xaanka]

it wasn't even that long ago when the idea of plate tectonics was demonized lol

[Xaanka]

i trust that about as much as i trust Shenzhen air quality data from the Chinese government