/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5425150
Will you kindly stop shoveling all that bullshit out of your mouth.
After careful scrutiny, the courts decided that there was no 'climategate' or 'climategate2'. What there was, was idiots misinterpreting scientific jargon in the most malicious way. So you can keep your Misinformation-tag to yourself.

Also, WE SHOULD BE IN A COOLING TREND UNTIL THE END OF THE NEXT ICE AGE.

I fucking hate you and all the little fuckheads like you who keep spouting the same heartland propaganda, WHICH WAS DENOUNCED AS HOAXES MONTHS OR YEARS AGO.

So fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.

With a telephone pole wrapped in razor wire and dipped in ebola.

It's the greatest thing that republicans deny to show how utter, utter cunts they are since the 1900 San Fransisco plague.

It's also the only thing I've seen in years about which even the majority of republicans are starting to agree with the democrats.

So anyone here who denies the existence of anthropogenic global warming is either a troll or a fundie.

>>4124667
Bravo. Biting and inventive.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11
>While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

>If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.

>This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

>As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the University and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so.

Teach the facts, not the headlines.