Russians Behind DNC attack!

[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."

[Jarnauga]

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

Putting it best: George Carlin on Global Warming

I find it hilarious that the name of the youtube channel is "http://www.youtube.com/user/FluorideIsBadForYou" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Jarnauga]

Originally Posted by Xaanka [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."

..and ?

[Daywolf]

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

Do you smoke crack?

No, why, you offering to sell me some out of your stash? Back when I use to smoke pot sometimes, I use to get the best stuff from my cop friend [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Xaanka]

how dare you question my totally sound beliefs which definitely stand up to scrutiny. hmm nope here's 7 organisations who agree we should drink our kool aid without asking too many questions!

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

[Ahldagor]

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

No, why, you offering to sell me some out of your stash? Back when I use to smoke pot sometimes, I use to get the best stuff from my cop friend [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Crack is whack. Just curious of how you developed your paranoia. Getting some Ted Kazinsky vibes.

[Jarnauga]

[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.]

..and ?

you're being outright dismissive of ideas which differ from your personally held beliefs on topics you have little more than a sophomoric understanding of. you literally posted two graphs in the same post that conflicted each other to "support" your argument. it's pretty clear you both simultaneously have little grasp of understanding of what you're talking about, nor have you given alternative theories ample consideration.

thing is, your points don't mean much if they can't stand up to scrutiny. but rather than question the strength of your own ideals, you demonize anything differing from your views as "religious" and this unscientific. it's ignorant and anti-intelligent.

care to explain the rapid climate shifts observed post-ice age? how does that evidence fit into your view of environmental gradualism, the theory in which the models you are posting are based on?

[big_ole_jpn]

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

Crack is whack. Just curious of how you developed your paranoia. Getting some Ted Kazinsky vibes.

kaczynski was woke doe