It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by eightonefive

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

What if it was backwards. What if the "PTB" own all the oil companies and power plants and they would be hit the hardest by these so called MMGW taxes, so they release those "hacked" e-mails knowing the truth behind them would be twisted and misinterpreted causing the MMGW skeptics to eat it up and spread their ignorance.

Go ahead, enjoy your poisoned air.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Too bad the oil companies and utility companies wont feel the sting of the climate tax whatsoever. They will pass the buck down to the consumer who will pick up the tab in higher priced energy sources.

What is your solution to all this? I can't tell if you really believe all the garbage you are spewing about MMGW, or if you are just another troll posting disinfo on these forums.

That's right, Al Gore worked in collusion with Enron to come up with the cap and tax in the first place.

Mean while Goldman Sachs is set to take over regulation of the carbon markets.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:39 PM
I have a question, yes I already know the answer to it, this is for the people that support the "science" behind MMGW.

How do the scientist differentiate the difference between Man-made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2?

Edit to add -

On the topic of TPTB, Schroders Dog(sp?) made a good point in a different thread. Summed up what he said was that it doesn't matter what policies pass for them because they are going to make money anyway. So it doesn't matter if Cap and Trade passes they are going to continue to make large sums of money. If Cap and Trade passes they are going to continue to make large sums of money.

Does anybody every step back and think about the bigger picture and ever wonder why every "solution" to a "problem" they come up with always involves a tax on everybody?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by Riposte
Haha, way to destroy any credibility you might have had.

So how do you want to get rid of these people? Nuclear war? Engineered bio-weapons?

How about a climate catastrophe?

Credibility? He came here and called me a "religious fanatic" only a few posts in. So what if I wished he was removed from the planet because of that. It has nothing to do with credibility.

How about we get rid of those people by letting natural selection take care of them.

The "animals" higher up on the food chain can make them believe something, and then they will react according to that something which will lead to their removal. Something along the lines of what is happening now.

He believes he is inconsequential, so be it. He will be inconsequential.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Some day when you grow up and you have a little more understanding as to what "reality" really is, come talk to me. I don't normally have time for children, but I found your attitude comical, almost pitiable, since you seem so deluded that you can't see the point of AGW or AGC or Copenhagen, or it seems anything for that matter. Your grasp of what is happening in the world seems tenuous at best and your links to reality, little more than a diaphanous thread. It really just appears you have parroted a party line, thrown in a few facts to support allegations and suppositions and now you want to call your "stew" tasty and mmm mmm good.

Going along with AGW for the ride, whether it is real or not at this point, pushes a political agenda that will within a year or so enslave us all. We need better solutions that are not politicized, that don't require the deconstruction and alleged equalization of every country in the world. If it was for the greater good and fair, then ok, but it is for the good of the financially greater. After Copenhagen is signed and our new "masters" screw it up again, it'll be ooops, sorry 'bout that. Poverty, opportunity and general apathetic malaise will be the same. The only thing left to fix climate change will be global genocide. That's it that's all.

Believe what you want, you will anyway. Have fun!

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:53 PM
Oh, man, I found something to agree with ALLisONE on...

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

• At the present time, approximately one third of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean — Wikipedia


Nor would I ever base an argument upon my findings in Wikipedia, particularly in a contributed article devoted primarily to the Kyoto Protocol.

It's best to stick to the reputable information sources, those without a political axe to grind.

While I share your concern with Wikipedia, Doc, I do use it as well. It is a good, easy to navigate source of physical data, for instance. The problem is it is user-generated, and thus anyone with an agenda can change it. So you have to be careful when using it. There are links at the bottom of most articles that lead back to information included in the article, and I have found these helpful on occasion as well.

In short, don't discount the source without verifying the data. It might be accurate. Stranger things have happened; I heard Obama say something honest once... he said "present".

Cherish this ALLisONE... it might be the last time we ever agree on anything.


[edit on 12/4/2009 by TheRedneck]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

That is too bad you didn't watch the videos. It is the most non-biased video I have found on the subject. That is why I thought it would be good to show ATS. It's a view from the middle, only looking at the science and facts and not the proponents and skeptics.

Also, your graph questions were answered already, did you see the real life example in the follow post?

Another real life example is found in the 2nd movie in my OP, about 3 minutes in. Too bad you missed such an important part of my post..... sad really... I hate discussing something that people don't even have knowledge about, like the video in my OP.

There are different types of "smoothing". They don't always "reduce" like you claim.

The point is that "smoothing" takes data out, it "filters" certain information. This can cause graphs to show inclines and declines that don't accurate represent what happened. This is common for scientists' graphs, and is talked about in the videos I posted.

For example.. You can see a sharp incline, but the reality is a slow incline. This would happen because the time and measurements in the middle were removed, which made the graph seem to incline faster. If you had another graph that you were comparing it to, it too would have to have that same time frame removed or it's comparison would not be accurate. It would show a slope next to an incline, and you would think it doesn't have a relationship.

That is a problem (which the e-mails talk about) that can cause issues.

If you are trying to combine graphs together to get an accurate reading of their relationship, it is absolutely vital that both graphs have identical time lines and are synchronized. The scientists from the hacked e-mails complained about this.


If I made two graphs of my computer usage, one graph each week, and I wanted two compare them.

Week 1: Monday, 4 hours. Tuesday, 1 hour. Wednesday, 5 hours.

...but then the next week, some unknown factor prevented me from getting an accurate usage measurement.

Week 2: Monday, 5 hours, Tuesday, NA. Wednesday 6 hours.

Now I can "smooth" the graph and remove Tuesday from both. However, this will then show that I had an increase in usage from Monday to Wednesday, when in reality I had a decrease in usage on Tuesday of Week 1. So how do I keep that decrease in week 1 visible to retain the accuracy of my measurements, and yet still compare them to Week 2?

I would have to do some type of padding just to complete the graph for week 2.

But, because I really don't care about day to day measurements, and I am more interested in week to week measurements, padding 1 day isn't a big deal, especially if it was padded using an average calculation.

Not sure of any other way to describe that.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:00 PM
reply to post by eightonefive

Translation: The largest companies in the world, the oil companies, are raping us, poisoning our air, polluting our lands and oceans, driving up prices during the recession while collecting record breaking profits, actively legislating against anything that might hurt said record-breaking profits...

But let's just forget about them and any legislation that might hurt them, because they'll just punish us even more (after all I'm too manly to drive a hybrid, too busy to have a garden, too lazy to switch to green electricity...)

Do you realize what you're saying? Your basically inferring that the literal PTB are too powerful for us, so let them continue on their merry rape, because we're scared we might get raped more.

This is an entirely craptastic situation. I definitely don't want "cap and trade" either. Doing nothing, however, will mean big oil continues its rampage of our resources and artificial price fixing for decades and possibly centuries to come. This may be the only way to shift our consumption from dirty to clean in the face of a possibly dangerous environment for our race.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, either, but it would be possible for you to completely avoid any effects of cap and trade if you would remove your fingers from the keyboard and research alternative options
You're better off with them anyway!

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by mnemeth1

Your last two posts are a complete joke. You are just another person who ignores scientific data and the scientific process, and would rather believe a few crappy e-mails that do NOT even touch the amount of scientific data supporting man-made climate change.

I bet you didn't even watch the videos.

-edit to add-

The tree ring data could have dropped do to local changes, not global changes. There could also be many other factors... not just one.

Get a clue.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

"ALLisONE", these videos represent ONE side of the issue, and as far as the e-mails go, any attempt to defend them is a bit of a stretch to say the least. Beyond the point which you interestingly discussed in reference to tree-ring data (Thank you for sharing that point-of-view), you need to also remember the blatant language in these e-mails regarding the attempts to suppress skeptics' views and their data, and the attempts to thwart FOIA requests (Which violates law). The latter two issues should be absolutely shocking and unjustifiable even absent of the former, and they in themselves should bring serious doubt upon the credibility of the scientists involved in this massive scandal.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

ALLisONE, your task is noble but hopeless. The Deniers are "not listening". Definitely don't get angry, but I do understand your frustration.

Deniers appear to have become the new fanatics on the boards. We had a biblical plague of paranoid-christians dominating the board not so long ago. They have for the most part vanished. I fully expect the the Deniers to vanish too. Patience

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The problem [with Wikipedia] is it is user-generated, and thus anyone with an agenda can change it. So you have to be careful when using it.

I agree on this point wholeheartedly — which is why I don't use Wikipedia. For data on such contentious issues as "manmade global warming," I prefer going straight to the top, to the NOAA, or the EPA, or even the The World Meteorological Organization — who the hysterical global-warming advocates love to quote.

Incidentally, The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, revealed to the BBC in April of 2008 that global temperatures have not risen since 1998 — which flies in the face of claims that the last 10 years have been the hottest in a thousand years (another falsehood). The years 1990, 1995 and 1997 were hotter than the year 2000, according to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists (a pro-manmade-global-warming research organization).

How could this be if the ten years between 1998 and 2008 were the "hottest years" in the last thousand years, and temperatures did not rise during those ten years?

Since that time, we have been advised that this inexplicable "pause" in global warming should last for years to come, but that global warming should resume "sometime after" 2015...

LOL... You gotta love all the "science" behind this claptrap.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:33 PM
Wrong. Climategate proves that global warming was a deliberate fraud. That's why so many involved are being fired and resigning. A congressional investigation has also been called and you should expect criminal charges at some point as well.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by factbeforefiction]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

That is too bad you didn't watch the videos. It is the most non-biased video I have found on the subject. That is why I thought it would be good to show ATS. It's a view from the middle, only looking at the science and facts and not the proponents and skeptics.

It's a bit like the old story of the boy who cried "WOLF!" too many times. And in that vein, I will attempt to find time to go back and watch them. I will not promise that if I do so, you will like my criticisms.

did you see the real life example in the follow post?

Yes I did. I did read all the posts, although some of the more angry ones I read less intently.

There are different types of "smoothing". They don't always "reduce" like you claim.

I have worked with graphs for over 30 years now, regularly, both creating and reading them. Believe me, I understand proper graphing procedures. You cannot go very deep into electronics without a thorough knowledge of how to read, interpret, and create graphs.

So believe me when I say there are many techniques to smooth a graph (I actually used two, composite and average data, in my example), but none of them involve removing or adding data.


This is not smoothing. This is manipulation.

In your example, your data gathering was faulty since it did not include a continuous data stream. You have a few options:
  1. Show the data from the omitted Tuesday as 'N/A' and make sure to include that missing day in any calculations made from the data.

  2. Take an average of all days surrounding that Tuesday and include that as the data from Tuesday.

  3. Take an average from all Tuesdays surrounding the missing date and include that as the data from Tuesday.

  4. Graph the values for all the Tuesdays and try to identify any trends that may be occurring. You can then include a value for Tuesday that matches the trend.

  5. Discard all the data.

These methods are all commonly used to fill in missing data; the problem here is not so much that one of them occurred, but that the transparency was non-existent. Now it is obvious (to me anyway) that the most honest solutions, and the ones that require no real explanation, are options 1 and 5. In 1, you have accurately recorded the data that was available and have noted where a day was missing. In 5, you have shown integrity by dismissing all possibly corrupted data, but you also have removed data which may not be able to be found another way.

If using methods 2, 3, or 4, it is absolutely, unconditionally imperative that you indicate what data was added, why it had to be adjusted, and the method that was used to do so. Anyone looking at that data, even if in graphical form, should be well aware of what happened,why it happened, and how it was corrected. Anything less is simply fraudulent and dishonest, more so if option 4 was used (as it would appear was the case here).

You may be used to working with graphs composed of these types of intentional 'errors', but I want you to consider this:

Transistors have several relationships between parameters which are graphed out. Decisions on which transistor I plan to use for a particular function depend almost solely on these graphs and the data they represent. If I start blowing transistors on a regular basis, or if they do not perform as they are said to, possibly because an interpolation in data caused a change in the graph, I will no longer use those transistor. Why? Because I do not trust the data on them.

I no longer trust the predictions made by the IPCC or the CRU. If this situation is handled properly, I will go back to my original position of wanting to verify, but considering them. If it is not resolved to my satisfaction, I will ignore any further predictions or climate models made or endorsed by the IPCC or the CRU. Period. I cannot put it any plainer than that.

Proper handling will include the following:
  1. Anyone who is indicated to have had any improper dealings with climate data must be removed from their position immediately upon identification. Period.

  2. Any data that has been manipulated improperly must be thrown out. The time for proper procedures to correct it is past.

  3. A full and complete investigation of all data, completely transparent to the public, must be undertaken and the same procedures as outlined in 1 and 2 above must be carried out for any indiscretions. Nothing else can establish trust in the rest of the data.

I know that sounds harsh, but this is the result of shoddy science. If proper procedures were followed initially, there would have been no scandal over leaked emails; indeed, I would personally be calling for the heads of those who leaked them, for invasion of privacy. That's why my recent posts have not centered around the leaks... the jury is still out. I will not convict the entire CRU or IPCC yet, but they are, for now, under indictment.

But, because I really don't care about day to day measurements, and I am more interested in week to week measurements, padding 1 day isn't a big deal, especially if it was padded using an average calculation.

Now, if that is one day over a period of 10 years, you are right; the difference would be negligible. It might not be as negligible if every other Tuesday were omitted and averaged back in. If it was properly averaged, the difference would probably be negligible. But what confidence can we have in the procedure followed, when it wasn't even publicly identified that such adjustments were made? What evidence shows conclusively that the omissions we know were corrected are the only ones that were?

I'm sorry; a mistake was made, and it must be corrected. If the tree ring data since 1960 did not match observations, then it is only obvious that all the tree ring data must be thrown out as well. One cannot cherry-pick data, using what fits and throwing out what doesn't; even a laymen knows that.

We'll see what happens. Until then, may I make one suggestion? In this case, your real enemy in spreading the message of AGW is not those here on ATS arguing against it; it is those who undertook to silently and secretly cook the books, regardless of their intent or accuracy.


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 09:55 PM

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

I know things others don't even know about our universe, I am just not in a position to publish the findings.

Oh ALLis0NE...

You do not! Now you're falsifying data!


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:00 PM
Your environmental religion is the shortest lived religion in the history of man kind. Get over it. You are done and no amount of fancy video explains the lies and theft of resources your so called religion has told and stolen.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Columbia University is its own proof of its political bias.

And you still have yet to provide a link and highlighted reasons to believe it.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, but you are pathetic enough to wish all your ideological opponents would just disappear, rather than dealing logically and objectively with them.

Actually, I never wished "all my opponents" would disappear, but only the ones that insult me and call me names. I guess you fall into that category now.

Nice try though. The only thing I have said on this entire topic was logical and backed up by multiple sources, I made sure of it. All you have done is tried to discredit my sources, and I tore you a new one when you tried it too. I can't even believe you are even still trying to recover from such a devastating blow to your ego.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Look, manmade climate change is the opinion of a minority — you've never had the majority of Earth's populace (who you consider evil and dumb) behind you on the global warming hoax, and it infuriates you.

I am pretty sure it is the other way around. Global warming is so real, and is happening before your eyes, and so many people agree with it that there is laws being passed because of it. And RIGHT NOW entire countries are aiming to reduce their emissions because of it.

The problem is, you think you are correct, and you hang out with people and listen to people who think they are correct. So your view of the matter is highly inaccurate.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I wouldn't know that because I don't refer to Wikipedia. That's the poor man's source of information (but mostly misinformation).

Oh goody, now I get to go through all your posts to see if you have ever used Wiki for anything. I really don't even have to because I know you did...

F.Y.I. Wiki is not a "source". It is a collection of sources.

Although anyone can edit Wiki, hence the name "wiki", Wikipedia strives to research every edit made to retain accuracy. All inaccurate data is removed when discovered.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Oh... Other sources such as breathing? LOL... Your manmade global warming myth is all about the burning of fossil fuels. Could you please list the other sources of manmade CO2 emission that are befouling the atmosphere? Aside from breathing, that is? Are you going to cite cigarette smoke, because if you are, you're going to come out of this looking like a bigger fool than you already are.

You again show your ignorance. This time, I will humiliate you by showing you your ignorance, then maybe this time you will get the point that I know more than you.

Another source of man-made CO2: Deforestation

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause.

However, the incineration and burning of forest plants in order to clear land releases tonnes of CO2, which contributes to global warming.

Philip M. Fearnside1 and William F. Laurance, TROPICAL DEFORESTATION AND GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, Ecological Applications, Volume 14, Issue 4 (August 2004) pp. 982–986

In 1997, Indonesian peat fires may have released 13% – 40% as much carbon as fossil fuel burning does in a single year.

Indonesian Wildfires Accelerated Global Warming

Massive peat burn is speeding climate change

So deforestation, and human caused wildfires are other man made sources of CO2.

Also, did you know that there are power plants that burn trash for energy? That releases CO2 also.

Did you know that cement manufacturing creates CO2 also?

I can probably find more sources too... Deny Ignorance. I bet you feel humiliated now.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No, you have 2 liberal university opinions and 1 Wikipedia reference. Show us a reliable source, such as the NOAA or the EPA, making such watered-down claims.

How about NASA?

The ocean absorbs about one-third of all man-made carbon dioxide.

Oh wait, NASA isn't good enough for you...

Here is a NOAA source:

The global oceans are the largest natural reservoir for this excess carbon dioxide, absorbing approximately one-third of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by human activities each year, and over the next millennium, is expected to absorb approximately 90% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

Now don't you feel really humiliated?

You are just a troll who will deny all facts, and even stoop low enough to deny sources that don't agree with you.

Now, doesn't that make my original sources more credible? Yes, it does.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I've never said that humans don't produce greenhouse gases. That is a fact.

Then why do you deny humans effect the temperature of Earth?

Greenhouse gas = warmth. If Earth didn't have greenhouse gases, Earth would freeze up. So more greenhouse gases equals more warmth. Do you see how simple that logic is?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
You, however, cannot prove that manmade greenhouse gases are causing climate-change. You, as a self-professed scientifically-minded person, are not relying on science at all, but upon the opinions of sources who have to manipulate their data.

Actually no. I am relying on SCIENCE. The Earth relies on greenhouse gases to stay warm. Without them, everything would freeze up. Since humans are producing more and more greenhouse gases every year, it is only logical to conclude that the Earth will get warmer because of it.

Since there is NOTHING that can absorb ALL the CO2, then the more and more we create is getting stuck in the atmosphere, causing more trapping of heat.

It's simple science, and to deny it is laughable. Really, the joke is on you.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And yet the Earth has, in fact, been in a cooling trend for the last 10 years. The science that you invariably misquote tells us that global warming has been "put on hold" and will remain "on hold" throughout most of the coming decade.

No warming. Cooling for the last 10 years and for several years to come.

Do you realize how ignorant your post is? Oh wait, what am I kidding, you don't.

There is more than one factor that determines the Earth's temperature. One is the Sun, the other is CO2, and there are others. The Sun and CO2 are the main ones. Even though CO2 is high and climbing, the Earth can still cool because of the Sun's lack of activity. If you read about the sun's latest activity you would see that the sun has been very quiet lately.

Just because the Earth may be going through a cooling trend (which it isn't that is false information), doesn't mean CO2 doesn't warm the Earth! There are other sources of heat that could be TEMPORARLY disappearing.

That said, here is a neat article that proves you wrong, and they use your favorite source NOAA:
Cooling trend does not refute global warming

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Oops, man. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself an education.

— Doc Velocity

Oh no wonder it is so easy to humiliate you... you payed a quarter for your education.

Well, I would give you a quarter to go buy yourself some common sense but they don't sell that apparently. I had mine from birth, so I guess you are out of luck.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by rizla
reply to post by ALLis0NE

ALLisONE, your task is noble but hopeless. The Deniers are "not listening". Definitely don't get angry, but I do understand your frustration.

Deniers appear to have become the new fanatics on the boards. We had a biblical plague of paranoid-christians dominating the board not so long ago. They have for the most part vanished. I fully expect the the Deniers to vanish too. Patience

So you're a climategate denier that doesn't believe Al Gore colluded with Enron to come up with cap and tax, which was lobbied for by the gas companies.

You also deny that Goldman Sachs is set to become the default regulator of the carbon derivatives market and has lobbied heavily in favor of them.

You also deny that GE is another massive proponent of cap and tax, along with Westinghouse Energy, which own NBC and CBS media outlets.

Give me a break.

The denier here is you, a climategate denier.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:08 PM
I would also like to add some more to this conversation. read this right here and something becomes horrifically apparent, that this small clique of people has single handedly crafted the"consensus" for whatever reason they had.

What the comment in the article reveals is that many many many scientist in the field of climate science have not spoken out about the goings on for fear of their jobs, but they knew exactly what has been going on.

Now what is also interesting is this development in the story of climategate, The Met Office is going to re-examine 160 years of climate data

Very telling is this, statement from the MetOffice(the same institution that has been mentioned numerous times in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt)

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:17 PM
reply to post by rizla

Thanks for your wise words.

Sadly, I already knew this would be an uphill battle because ATS is full of people who think they aren't sheep so they try to go against the norm. to prove it. However, when the norm. is actually the truth and they start to go against it, they don't care how true it is, they just don't want to be a sheep.

Sadly, now, the sheep are starting to follow the people who don't want to be sheep. This makes it harder for them to not be one.

They keep referencing the boy that cried wolf, but they are forgetting the end of the story where the boy told the truth, and nobody listened.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

It would appear to me that Cap & Trade should be put on hold until 2012 then. I know this will probably disappoint you, my friend, but I really hope they follow the proper procedures to retain what data is left.

It is a shame to lose data over the possibly criminal actions of a few fanatics.


posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

This is what you don't understand. We are not going against MMGW because of (insert reason here__________) we are going against the theory of MMGW because the science doesn't add up.

When ever the "deniers" ask simple questions they get called "deniers", "non-believers", "flat-earthers", and any other multitude of names, with absolutely no explanation of the question asked or anything else.

Then when trying to find answers on our own it all leads to dead ends and the equivalent to "Hey were scientist, just trust us." That is not science.

Now the most damning thing has happened the MetOffice has come out and said they are going to Re-examine all 160 years of raw data. It is becoming very clear that MMGW has become nothing more than a religion.

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

They keep referencing the boy that cried wolf, and they are forgetting the end of the story where the boy told the truth, and nobody listened.

Actually I was the one that referenced that, just now; I did not see it in any other posts on this thread (correct me if I am wrong).

I remind you that the fable in question had the moral to not cry "wolf", not to always believe those who do.


new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in