Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.
But that's not what you're doing. If you were, you'd get your information from peer-reviewed sources, and you would understand that there are still mysteries about global warming to be solved (like whether or not a warmer climate will result in more malaria cases) and that this in no way casts doubt on the main idea.
It's not science to bring up things like that as an argument against the AGW model. It's the kind of thing that's done by the well-funded disinformation campaign put out by the fossil-fuel industry to create the impression of doubt where there is, in fact, no doubt. Which is why I try to stick with peer-reviewed material. (There's some propaganda put out on the other side, too, although it pales by comparison both in volume and in shameless distortion of the truth.)
Two million deaths? Source? Your ass?
No, my title reveals me as a sceptic. The only dupes are those who still bow to the alter of AGW as it is currently preached. Come up with some legit empirical data and I will pay attention once again. But, until that time comes I will simply stay with the scientific method.
But that's not what you're doing. If you were, you'd get your information from peer-reviewed sources, and you would understand that there are still mysteries about global warming to be solved (like whether or not a warmer climate will result in more malaria cases) and that this in no way casts doubt on the main idea.
It's not science to bring up things like that as an argument against the AGW model. It's the kind of thing that's done by the well-funded disinformation campaign put out by the fossil-fuel industry to create the impression of doubt where there is, in fact, no doubt. Which is why I try to stick with peer-reviewed material. (There's some propaganda put out on the other side, too, although it pales by comparison both in volume and in shameless distortion of the truth.)
The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.
Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.
Oh, but I do old boy, I do! I use peer reviewed studies from sources OTHER then the "pal reviewed" nonsense being spewed out by the AGW supporters. When one of the leading lights of the AGW hypothesis feels safe admitting in a paper that he is altering the ACTUAL temperature record because it doesn't conform to the computer models he uses for his "scientific research" you have a problem Houston.
The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.
Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.
Walleyes, the scientific community is presenting even more evidence concerning the consequences that we are now seeing. Of course, just presented in the most recent AGU Conferance. And obese junkies and you are so much smarter than the men and women there, right?
Oh, but I do old boy, I do! I use peer reviewed studies from sources OTHER then the "pal reviewed" nonsense being spewed out by the AGW supporters. When one of the leading lights of the AGW hypothesis feels safe admitting in a paper that he is altering the ACTUAL temperature record because it doesn't conform to the computer models he uses for his "scientific research" you have a problem Houston.
The fact that you can see something like that and ignore it speaks volumes about you. Either your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method where this sort of alteration is considered academic fraud, or the fact that you don't care because he meshes with your political views.
Either way, the scientific community is finally waking up to the cancer in its midst and cutting them out.
BTW. I love the term "pal reviewed." I'm going to steal that from you, if you don't mind.