It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Lumenari
Completely false.
Proven to be false over and over and over and over... but yet people believe it anyways.
Most cite the Cook report... the mythical "97% of scientists agree" hogwash.
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Phage
Are you saying none of the data has been altered, in any way, to support their arguement?
originally posted by: Phage
originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Phage
Are you saying none of the data has been altered, in any way, to support their arguement?
Yes. I have seen no indication that is the case.
Are you saying that the AGW "skeptics" don't lie about the data? Are you saying that the chart on the right represents global temperatures? Can you produce the source for that chart?
Then came Jerry Taylor, Version #2. That’s the Jerry Taylor who – after doing what he describes as his own “due diligence” – has come to fully accept and endorse the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on human-caused climate change that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the past half-century-plus primarily as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically including carbon dioxide.
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
In the Climategate scandal, the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was sued for the source data, to no avail, with the CRU, after LOSING legal arguments, made the spurious/laughable claim that they "lost the original data".
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: M5xaz
In the Climategate scandal, the CRU unit of the University of East Anglia was sued for the source data, to no avail, with the CRU, after LOSING legal arguments, made the spurious/laughable claim that they "lost the original data".
You are completely and utterly incorrect. Yes, I know that's redundant.
rationalwiki.org...
McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.
This is the real hoax of climate change. If we just give most of our wealth and control of our lives to Governments they can change the climate. Why would anyone fall for such nonsense?
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Maybe it's just my nature but any time you get labelled a "denier" only serves to raise my skepticism. The truth only needs the force of law to prop it up when it's manufactured.
Trading SO2 credits seems to have been quite effective in reducing emissions at no cost to consumers. Government intervention seems to have helped reduce pollution of many sorts. But in the US, that seems to be changing.
Maybe if there was precedence of any government program being run efficiently, more would be on board as well.
I think you have to start with acknowledgement of problem. The disinformation and money behind it doesn't help.
If you really want to change ppls mind, you have to prove to them it will be equitable, and effective. I have zero faith that it would be either.