/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4065548
>climate change isn't real
keep on keepin on buddy

Oh look, it's yesterday again and the retard's back.

I don't want to repost every response to your stupid bullshit from yesterday, so instead, I'd like it if you instead write down your bs arguments and see these links
http://planet3.org/2011/11/24/of-emails-and-scientific-research/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained
for all the rebuttals.

Climate change is real, the people that say so have all the evidence, while the people who say climate change isn't real have only propaganda and smoke and mirrors.

So unless you have actual evidence to prop up your shit, then shut up.

Climate change due to human actions isn't significant. But it doesn't change the fact that our actions actually do harm nature and that's why I like idea of regulating industry in order to protect plants and animals.

>>4065563
>Climate change is real
No one's denying it. But we don't discuss it. We ask if it's true that human's actions are the cause of it and to what degree.

Written by James Taylor, a lawyer
>I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute

Heartland Institute funding:
Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust 190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000

The only thing those emails show is that the so-called skeptics are really nothing more than conspiracy theorists with no interest in the actual science.

>>4065563
>climate change is real

lol if its so real why do you have to constantly change its name to support the evidence (or lack thereof)

global warming > climate disruption > climate change

every consecutive one becomes more vague so the propaganda can fit around the lack of evidence. whats the next one? "stuff happens"


lollll

>atheismIsGay
Didn't read anything else

>>4065627

There is no "constant change"

Various terms refer to various aspects of the issue - see here, for example:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

>>4065563
I find your rude evasive convenient snot-nose arrogant dribble to be of the stooge-like persuasion. You can't deal with the issues and problems, so you avoid, and just ad hom...and say "aahh, blind ignorance....and not worth commenting on" arf arf. Spare me.

The probability of humans producing global warming , anywhere in the universe from supposed polluting processes, with even hundreds of years to do it, is as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard.

IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

And also, you DON'T really trust in "science". Not real empirical actual true "science" anyway. You trust in MYTH AND SPECULATION AND DISTORTION masquerading dishonestly as "science". You're placing fags with a penchant for cherry picking "evidence", up on a pedestal.

Pricks like you think of "science" as a definite body of knowledge—as if it were a place whose boundary and geography were well known and easily verified. In fact, it is a province whose vast unknown territories are filled in only a little at a time.
Your sage is cute by the way.

>>4065605
Could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.

Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.

Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.

>>4065661

>complain about ad hominem
>mfw the whole email saga is nothing more than one big ad hominem

If you are so certain about what's going on with the climate, why not focus on that instead of unsupported accusations?

And then:
>The probability of humans producing global warming , anywhere in the universe from supposed polluting processes, with even hundreds of years to do it, is as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard.

Could we see the calculation behind this?

>>4065661
Yes, these kinds of posts certainly elicit a positive response and clearly demonstrate your great academic merits within the field of climatology.

I stand in awe of the immense wisdom exhibited in your post and will forthright change my views that only have the backing of thousands of experts.

I repeat, your side has mainly liars and frauds, our side has the scientists and experts.

You didn't produce any evidence this time either, so I will remain in contempt of you.

>>4065682
>emails on public display for all to see

>UNSUPPORTED ACCUSATIONZ NO EVIDENZ I BELIEVES IN SCIENZ HURR DURRR

its like atheists dont even know the definitions of the words they use. they just hear dawkins say "unsupported hurr dur no evidenz hurr durr" and they think they can use it in any argument for an automatic win

>>4065682
>>4065687
Environmentalism has many holes and flaws. much of man-made global warming is a rag hypothesis and run-away conjecture. That my friend, is NOT "science." There's also much cover-up and suppression involved. And that is also against true honest "science." With the appalling gaps and problems in the climate data that get conveniently ignored or rationalized away, and with the severe problems with the complex climate code, man made climate change, is NOT actual observable "fact" anywhere.


Sloppy thinking and hasty conclusions are pervasive with environmentalists.

Seeing things in the climate record that are simply not there, and also making hasty conclusions when they see an unfamiliar statistic or observation.

Constantly confusing "climate change" with "man-made climate change".


Force-fitting things in a tortured, biased, and reckless way. That's NOT true empirical or honest "science." But is just bending observations to fit in with pre-conceptions because of agendas.


Yeah, go ahead and pout, drone-tard. Your lipstick looks sexier when you combine it with high school sarcasm.

>>4065693

Actually, in case you didn't notice, the article you linked doesn't even link to those emails. All you get are little snippets that are being fit into a preconceived narrative.

I mean come on, think a little! That Heartland guy is not a scientist, he's a shill paid to deceive you.

>>4065708

>Constantly confusing "climate change" with "man-made climate change".

It seems to me that the only person confused here is you. This is a _science_ board. Here, it's not enough to you just write
>much of man-made global warming is a rag hypothesis and run-away conjecture
and be done with it.

If you want to convince people that scientists are wrong on this one, you need to show some real evidence. Your hand-waving is insufficient.

Most theories have holes and flaws.

That's why they are "theories" instead of "Laws".

That does not mean "the basic premise is wrong".

>>4065729
premises are nothing in and of themselves, merely a perspective with which to view the hypothesis. you dont claim something is true based on premises.

>>4065740
>you do claim something is true based on premises
fixed that for you

>>4065740
Of course you do, you dumb fuck. Not a single conclusion, whether positive or negative, is ever drawn without a fucking premise.

>>4065749
and i guess that explains why you believe in hoaxes like global warming

>>4065753
Premiss is, by definition, the thing from which you draw the conclusion.

>>4065763
yea, and either or both can be wrong. whats your point?

>>4065740
If the premise of a hypothesis hay enough supporting evidence, it becomes a theory.

>>4065740
If the premise of a hypothesis has enough supporting evidence, it is a theory.

>>4065768
>you dont claim something is true based on premises
That you do exactly that.

>atheismIsGay !PH5F8eeO2s

... just got his ass kicked on /pol/ in a "I FUCKING HATE CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS" thread

>>4065777
So he comes here for more abuse.

He's a masochist.

>>4065768
No, what is *your* point, you fucking clown? Your original objection was that "you dont claim something is true based on premises", even though premises are all you ever have to derive whether something is true or false.

tl;dr: Your objection was stupid. There, that's my point.

>>4065779

Everyone who takes /pol/ seriously is a masochist.

>implying you don't have to support premises with evidence

>>4065786
>implying science never figured that out

>>4065788
>implying all of the assclowns in this thread know what science is

>>4065780
your original objection was that "hurr durr the premise is still true" to which i replied "my good sir, the premise in and of itself means nothing"

and i was correct and if that wasnt you then why engage if you cant follow the argument? either way, you lose.

>>4065786
The notion that something has to be validated by evidence is a premise as well.

If you want to babble on about global warming, fine, but stop it with this "premise" bullshit. It's fucking retarded and gets you nowhere.

>>4065791
Except the premise has enough supporting evidence to be a theory. In other words, the premise has been proven.

>>4065793
so youre admitting science itself is based on an unprovable premise?

>>4065795
lets make things a bit clearer for the sake of discussion, please define this premise which you say is "proven"

>>4065791
>your original objection was that "hurr durr the premise is still true"
That wasn't me, and no, the guy only said that a premise doesn't have to be invalid only because some of its derivations have flaws. This is just a fact.

Learn to read, if you want to play the debate troll.

>"my good sir, the premise in and of itself means nothing"
Which, my dearest fagglet, is a total non sequitur, as I pointed out in previous posts.

>and i was correct and if that wasnt you then why engage if you cant follow the argument? either way, you lose.
lolutrolmeXD

>>4065796
I wouldn't call it "admitting" as much as "pointing out the obvious".

Yes, science is based on axioms, paradigms and premises, just like everything else.

>>4065800

People please stop responding. I thought we've got over this shit already.

>>4065561
>Implying earth's climate is constant and never changed in history

>>4065803
Yeah, you're right. Sorry.

>>4065804
Sure, it has. About a thousand times slower than it's doing now.

>>4065800
no he said the premise is still true as if to say the premise in and of itself is sufficient, and it is not. learn to reading comprehension

>>4065811
No, that is what YOU are saying.

We are correcting you.

You however, keep saying the same thing.

Your posts are delusional in nature in that you are saying things that were never posted.

>>4065815

You can't correct a troll you fool.

>>4065815
so when he says "the premise is still true" hes just casually letting us know this (allegedly irrelevant, according to you) information for absolutely no reason? that doesnt make sense. the only possible reason he (you) has to bring up such a thing is because he is claiming that the premise in and of itself is sufficient.

either way, i asked what premise he (you) was talking about so that we can have a bit more clarity, because im willing to bet it isnt true either.

We're adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

The carbon cycle was previously very balanced, now it isn't.

Levels of CO2 are rising in the atmosphere.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

We are also darkening the atmosphere via burning coal, and our release of CO2 and other chemicals has complex effects on many natural atmospheric systems.

The release of CO2 can create negative feedback loops that warm the earth ever more quickly-see the melting of Arctic sea ice and the increased absorption of heat by the water due to its low albedo.

This warming can have negative repercussions in climactic patterns, disrupting agriculture and ecosystems, and could result in dramatic increases in sea level over the next century that transform our coastlines.

Where in this well-supported chain do you find fault? Because to me, when you lay it out, it seems totally self-evident.

>>4065820
-I- said "Since there is enough evidence to prove the theory, the premise is true."

You are delusional. Lets see if you get confused again.

>>4065605
>We ask if it's true that human's actions are the cause of it and to what degree.
Well said

>>4065561
>texas is hot
Oh god no!

>>4065820
-I- said "Since there is enough evidence to support the theory, the premise is true."

You are delusional. Lets see if you get confused again.

Look. See that? That's the level of CO2 over the last several decades, increasing, as global temperatures simultaneously increased. And this rise is concurrent with increases in the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by the human species.

GEE I WONDER IF THESE THINGS ARE IN ANY WAY RELATED

>>4065821
>It causes the atmosphere to retain heat.

fallacy #1. there is no proof of this global phenomenon, you are extrapolating this claim from small controlled observations and experiments.

>We are also darkening the atmosphere via burning coal, and our release of CO2 and other chemicals has complex effects on many natural atmospheric systems.

unproven

>The release of CO2 can create negative feedback loops that warm the earth ever more quickly-see the melting of Arctic sea ice and the increased absorption of heat by the water due to its low albedo.

unproven assumption based on faulty premise

>This warming can have negative repercussions in climactic patterns, disrupting agriculture and ecosystems, and could result in dramatic increases in sea level over the next century that transform our coastlines.

negative is a subjective term. you dont draw conclusions from your feelings or opinions. also, you have a faulty assumption based on false premises

>>4065833
there is not enough evidence to support the theory, and even if there was it wouldnt make the premise true. it would only make the premise seemingly accurate.

again, describe your premise.

>>4065844
my premis is that ur a faget

>>4065821
Is there effects from CO2 emissions? Surely. Is it possible to kill all life by replacing a proportion of our atmosphere with CO2? Undoubtedly.

Are the current levels and production overstated? Probably.

Although being completely honest and admitting we won't destroy all life for 500 years instead of 20 years means we probably won't be as environmentally cautious as we should. The credibility of science is what's really at stake though.

>>4065661
>"I find your rude evasive convenient snot-nose arrogant dribble to be of the stooge-like persuasion. You can't deal with the issues and problems, so you avoid, and just ad hom...and say "aahh, blind ignorance....and not worth commenting on" arf arf. Spare me."
>copy pasta

Lulz

>>4065837
So nothing I said sunk in at all then...I don't even know where to start with this idiotic shit.

You're essentially denying obvious scientific facts about chemicals because it doesn't go with your meta-narrative. That makes me sad for humanity in general. If so many of us are so blind to bullshit and willing to just ignore serious issues...well, what does that say about how likely it is for us to survive for more than another 100 years?

>>4065849
"All life"? Very few people talk about that. Mostly we're concerned over the impact of these changing climate patterns on development-disruptions in agriculture and coastline could be incredibly costly to us as we try to advance into the next century. An uncontrolled Venus-scenario is unlikely.

>>4065836
CO2 levels are increasing constantly, while temperatures jump randomly from year to year
Human contribution to CO2 is also not as constant as that graph

>>4065861
>hurr durr stop denying scientifix fax they r scientifix fax cuz da scienz said so no time for disproving ur argument, im just sad cuz u dont believe tru fax

>>4065861
>implying that he is would be or could ever be in a possition to affect anything at all regardless of what his opinions are

He's an idiot, he doesnt matter, and he knows this and that is why he is so angry. Calm down.

>>4065836
OMG INTERNET CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING
ALL THOSE SERVERS ARE HEATING THE ATMOSPHERE

>>4065872
Oh yeah! Shit, I was actually sad about stuff for a second.

Hey tripfaggot, we're going to regulate you in the shithole so hard that you'll die penniless as we feast on orphan meat! WOOOOOOOOOOO STALIN YAY! The religious will be put to work on vast Atheist slave camps, creating condoms and copies of Richard Dawkins books as we yank several of you aside at a time for savage anal rape, all while forcibly educating your children into the Church of Homosexual Liberal Secular Humanist Communism.

>we're going to regulate you in the shithole so hard that you'll die penniless
Typical climate scientist detected

Recently met a climate scientist, he still doesn't know why I hate his guts

>>4065894
No, that was the politician you normally vote for.

It has to do with the "war on terruh".

>>4065894
For telling the truth instead of lying to you to make you feel better?

>>4065900
Still though everyone talks trash about climate scientists because their science is worse than anything else.

>>4065901
>truth
see >>4065548

>>4065894
hurr look how witty i am responding to blatant sarcastic hyperbole as if it is serious i am so smart and edgy LOL I PWNZORED YTOU SCIENZ

>>4065907
learn to read assnigger

>>4065563

>>4065907
I've seen them. Doesn't change anything.
If you'd bothered to read some of the articles posted here and in the previous thread, you'd know why.

I know there are people who hate others for pointing out uncomfortable things, I usually call them 'children'.

>>4065918
>point out that man made global warming doesnt have a solid foot to stand on
>cultists get butthurt
>I know there are people who hate others for pointing out uncomfortable things, I usually call them 'children'.

>>4065914
You are of course implying that bullshitting about climate is real science. There are no links between correlations, and in some cases no correlations at all.

>>4065918
It proves these leaked e-mails are obfuscating horseshit, and the people presenting them are taking quotes out of context as part of a smear campaign.

>>4065944
It doesn't take much to smear people who incriminate themselves in private.

>>4065929
Am I mad? Yes I'm mad. I'm mad at you for saying such utter utter crap like
>man made global warming doesnt have a solid foot to stand on
when presented with tonnes of evidence.
And your only justification is that you don't like what is being said.

The good thing about taking care of children is that if one of them behaves badly and keeps at it even when told not to, I can always lift them in the air by their ears until they promise to stop.

I literally wish I was there to do that to you until you stop behaving like a spoiled brat and start behaving like someone who can actually take responsibility of his actions.

That's what I meant by calling you a child.

>>4065942
Strong assertion against a field with decades of data and tens of thousands of expert members doing advanced research as we speak. How's life in your bubble of stupid bullshit going?

>>4065946
quotes out of context, strong language-your refrain of stupid is truly immune to explanation. Address the rebuttals to the e-mails at length.

>>4065946
And you're still doing it. None of those emails are incriminating except in the eyes of laypeople who don't understand what is being talked about.

>>4065915
>blogs
>backpedalling

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/phrasesexplained

Seriously, explain this you fuckwits. Explain this direct refutation of your bullshit.

>>4065947

tonnes of evidence lol, why is it when these threads pop up people always say there are tons of evidence, yet never produce it

>>4065953
You now also have a problem with scientist writing blogs?
Go back to the sandbox to bully the other kids. This board is 18+

>>4065953
>context=backpedalling

We've always been at war with Eastasia....seriously, you people are fucking retarded.

>>4065955
>caught with a prostitute
>"its not what it looks like honey!"
>"she's my massage therapist!"

>>4065956
BECAUSE WE DID
I, PERSONALLY POSTED TENS OF LINKS IN THE PREVIOUS THREAD AND MORE IN THIS ONE

WHY THE FLYING FUCK CAN'T YOU FUCKING IDIOTS READ THE FUCKING THREAD BEFORE POSTING CRAP

>>4065962
>>4065955
What he said to cover his ass can be, and probably is, a lie. What he said in private when he thought no one was watching is so much more important.

>>4065967

dont bother with them theyre too far gone

>>4065958
Bullying victim would explain a lot of the self esteem issues you have

>>4065971
And what explains that you're being so fucking stupid?

>>4065974
HURR DURR U STOOPID

Don't expect anything better from you people, at least you can copypaste proper insults.

I think OP mixes up science and religion, which are actually different things.

His trip and that he wrote "believ in scienz" suggest that.

OP, you should know that science can be used even with working on matters or results contrary to ones faith or personal believes.
Just remember: Belief does not require strong proof. A bit of evidence is enough, but some beliefs don't even need evidence. Religions usually accept weaker evidence for proof than science does and that's totally okay as long as you don't mix them up.

>>4065975
HURR DURR U STOOPID

Don't expect anything better from you people, at least you can copypaste proper insults.

>>4065967
But that's stupid as fuck-the quotes are out of context, by putting them into a context that can in most of these cases be found in the emails themselves, the seeming negative implications vanish.

Example-
"“We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff."

What has been cut out of this quote is the explanation that we wanted the science to reflect the limits of scientific knowledge ‘warts and all’: “We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written that sounds as though it could have been written by a coral person 25 years ago. We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all, dubious dating, interpretation marginally better etc."

Incidentally, this refers to Michael Schulz and not Michael Mann as bloggers appear to believe. "

see? Changes the whole import of the statement.

""I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show the warming."

The full email exchange reveals that we were choosing colours for a chart covering periods that showed warming. The periods chosen were 1901 to 2005 (the long record) and 1979 to 2005 (the satellite record)."

The e-mails back this up-they're not up to ANYTHING.

>>4065979
>thread makes no mention of religion
>find a way to insert it

>>4065975
The thing is, I've already posted evidence. Posted rebuttals. Posted logical arguments. So I've already proven my legitimacy.

All you've come up with, all thread, are insults, ad-homs, "I don't wanna believe it so it's not true" and similar shit.

And it IS shit. If you use that kind of bs in school, your grades must be the worst ever.

So it's reached the point where, instead of expending any more energy trying to get the stupid horse to drink (I already led it to the through, as said), I'm just going to relax and enjoy kicking it in the nuts.

>>4065981
>>4065975
Fookin cloudflare

>>4065988
>thread makes no mention of religion
>atheismIsGay !PH5F8eeO2s

>>4065982
You can't trust that kind of context. If cops trusted suspects when they say they didn't do it we would have a very fucked up society...

>>4065997
Apparently atheism is such an easy religion to troll that even a tripcode can set these guys off

>>4065997
atheists brought up religion, as usual. they talk more about religion than religious people themselves. my name is just a name, deal with it.

>>4065998
>you can't trust that
You just don't want to believe, so anything anyone can say is just wrong because you say so?

Well how about listening to someone who used to say the climate change is bogus?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U

Also, even the US republicans are starting to get in the camp, decrying about the republican presidential candidates who deny it.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/52924716-90/activist-climate-dechristopher-huntsman.html.csp

>>4065988
>thread makes no mention of mention
>find a way to insert it

We already have a big long thread about this:

>>4062306

And seriously, why are we trusting a hacker who nobody knows the identity of? Let's take a look at this behaviour:

1. He stole 10 years worth of e-mails from the UEA server, hacked the RealClimate website, and could be linked to the break-in at Andrew Weaver's office done by persons disguised as computer technicians

2. Of these e-mails, he chose to release only 1,000 of them, despite there being 220,000 e-mails total. If he's interested in the truth, why didn't he release all of them at once?

3. Look at the timing of each e-mail release. The first 1000 were released in advance of the Copenhagen Conference for maximum political impact. Now that there's another climate conference approaching, he decides to release another set. Doesn't it make sense that his goal is to smear scientists for political reasons, rather than being a spotless little angel?

And just as an aside, the police only spent £5,649.09 on investigating the hack. £80.05 of that spent in the last 6 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886

>>4066007
I already explained the logic behind it

Wait, you find this a good thing
>Also, even the US republicans are starting to get in the camp, decrying about the republican presidential candidates who deny it.
Institutionalized dogma?

>>4066009
>hurr durr the evidence must not be considered because his intentions were bad

>>4066004
what makes you think the poster of >>4065988 is atheist? there is no sign of him being atheist. it seems to me, he explains how he manages to be religious and scientist at the very same time.

Now both bs threads are on the front page.
Fuck you anti-science faggots, I'm going to sleep.

>>4065998

>You can't trust that kind of context.

Why not? The e-mails don't show anything criminal happening. So why are we assuming that the scientists are guilty until proven innocent?

Also, the scientists are right about the science. The CRU's temperature data is actually lowballing temperature trends compared to NASA, NOAA, the Japanese data, European reanalysis, and now even the skeptic-run BEST project. The "hockey stick" graph has been corroborated by two dozen independent studies. None of the scientists writing those e-mails have anything to do with determining whether global warming is caused by man, which is now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If these scientists were committing fraud, why would they bother faking their results to look like what everyone else is doing? If they were trying to exaggerate global warming, why did they underestimate the trends?

>>4066019
>complain about threads on the front page
>bump them
>leave

y u no sage?

>>4066013
No, I'm saying that the evidence is now SO GOOD, that even the recently institutionally non-green republican party has had to admit that shit has gotten real and that they have been wrong.

>>4066026
Because I've been exposed to the bozotronium in these threads that I'm going crazy.
There is no spatial, no temporal bar,
distant is near, and proximate far.

>>4065661
>is as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard.

lolol, that's literally the same fail argument that Christians use to "prove" evolution untrue, and the use of that "argument" shows what kind of critical thinker you are. Hey OP, maybe God is causing global warming, to see if mankind can rise to the challenge, or to bring about the end of days. Ever think of that one? lolol

>>4066016

The problem is there's no evidence of anything. Actions are more important than words. What's the absolute worst thing that the scientists have been shown to have DONE? Avoiding frivolous and vexatious FOIA requests? Privately badmouthing people who annoy them? Criticizing each others' results like scientists are supposed to do? Gee what a scandal

The first 1000 e-mails released in 2009 were analyzed by 9 separate investigations: one from UEA, two from Penn State, two from the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Independent Climate Change E-mail Inquiry review, the EPA, the NSF and now even the Inspector-General of the US Department of Commerce (not exactly friendly to climate scientists). NONE of them found the scientists guilty of fraud or scientific malpractice. Are we to believe that all these organizations are in on the conspiracy?

>>4066040
>Are we to believe that all these organizations are in on the conspiracy?

did someone say conspiracy? count me in!

>>4066040
>conspiracy
No, it's called political correctness
You AREN'T ALLOWED TO SAY SOMETHING THAT ISN'T POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT

atheismIsGay, do you by any chance have a youtube channel by the name "shockofgod"? Cause you sound just (as retarded) alike.

>>4067082
I don't want to get too involved in this, but this particular argument is quite weak. It assumes that every country, whose scientists corroborate the "climate hoax", has the exact same political sensibilities, and that's just wrong. There are many countries, especially in the EU, where climate change denial is rare, but not necessarily a taboo.

>>4065548
>denies man-made global warming
>believes in a personal god
I'm beginning to notice a pattern here...

>>4067117
Dude, a professor of geology almost lost tenure for suggesting it, people still treat him like a leper.

>>4067159
Links please. Usually when something like this is suggested, it's actually because the guy broke other rules, and not just being an idiot.

>>4067227
I think it's perfectly plausible that some people might have gotten into (minor) trouble just for having an unpopular opinion. However, it's less plausible to assume that this is the norm in literally every university and research facility in the world.

>>4067227
It's at my university, and you won't find record of it.