Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, please...Put this in a courtroom, where rules of evidence are actually followed.
Put all those CRU frauds on the stand under oath.
Pretty please?
Oh, please...Put this in a courtroom, where rules of evidence are actually followed.
Put all those CRU frauds on the stand under oath.
Pretty please?
It would definitely be a slam dunk for the AGW believers. First, there's the fact that the emails were stolen. Then, there's the fact that the deniers have been interpreting the phrases used for their own ends, rather than as they were intended. It's not unusual for scientists to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" attributable to other sources in order to parse out what you're ineterested in. But the Climategate hoaxers don't want you to know the real meanings. They want to lead you by the nose down a path of THEIR choosing.
Seems to me that there is material there for some defamation legal procedings.
Oh, please...Put this in a courtroom, where rules of evidence are actually followed.
Put all those CRU frauds on the stand under oath.
Pretty please?
It would definitely be a slam dunk for the AGW believers. First, there's the fact that the emails were stolen. Then, there's the fact that the deniers have been interpreting the phrases used for their own ends, rather than as they were intended. It's not unusual for scientists to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" attributable to other sources in order to parse out what you're ineterested in. But the Climategate hoaxers don't want you to know the real meanings. They want to lead you by the nose down a path of THEIR choosing.
Oh, please...Put this in a courtroom, where rules of evidence are actually followed.
Put all those CRU frauds on the stand under oath.
Pretty please?
It would definitely be a slam dunk for the AGW believers. First, there's the fact that the emails were stolen. Then, there's the fact that the deniers have been interpreting the phrases used for their own ends, rather than as they were intended. It's not unusual for scientists to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" attributable to other sources in order to parse out what you're ineterested in. But the Climategate hoaxers don't want you to know the real meanings. They want to lead you by the nose down a path of THEIR choosing.
Wait, you're serious?
The guys on our side aren't dodging open debates and having the tracks of their junk "science" covered over by sham inquiries.
The guys on our side aren't dodging open debates and having the tracks of their junk "science" covered over by sham inquiries.
They don't dodge?!?! LOL!!! They dodge EVERYTHING. The very notion that climatologists are performing "junk" science should be enough to get anything thrown out. A trial requires actual proof and, while you may quibble about procedures and conclusions, to characterize the science as such would be easily disproved and the deniers' position shown to be prejudiced and untenable on a legal basis. You can't say AGW scientists are lying and then go lying yourself. You'd be laughed out of court.
The guys on our side aren't dodging open debates and having the tracks of their junk "science" covered over by sham inquiries.
They don't dodge?!?! LOL!!! They dodge EVERYTHING. The very notion that climatologists are performing "junk" science should be enough to get anything thrown out. A trial requires actual proof and, while you may quibble about procedures and conclusions, to characterize the science as such would be easily disproved and the deniers' position shown to be prejudiced and untenable on a legal basis. You can't say AGW scientists are lying and then go lying yourself. You'd be laughed out of court.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Foxtrot
I repeat What the fucking fuck?
They don't dodge?!?! LOL!!! They dodge EVERYTHING. The very notion that climatologists are performing "junk" science should be enough to get anything thrown out. A trial requires actual proof and, while you may quibble about procedures and conclusions, to characterize the science as such would be easily disproved and the deniers' position shown to be prejudiced and untenable on a legal basis. You can't say AGW scientists are lying and then go lying yourself. You'd be laughed out of court.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Foxtrot
I repeat What the fucking fuck?
If you keep repeatuing the same crap, so will I.
Of course, it's obvious that the deniers don't have a leg to stand on. The most laughable thing I've seen lately is the quoting of a scientist as saying there hasn't been warming in 15 years at the same time that they're bashing him for poor record keeping. You can't have it both ways!!!
They don't dodge?!?! LOL!!! They dodge EVERYTHING. The very notion that climatologists are performing "junk" science should be enough to get anything thrown out. A trial requires actual proof and, while you may quibble about procedures and conclusions, to characterize the science as such would be easily disproved and the deniers' position shown to be prejudiced and untenable on a legal basis. You can't say AGW scientists are lying and then go lying yourself. You'd be laughed out of court.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Foxtrot
I repeat What the fucking fuck?
If you keep repeatuing the same crap, so will I.
Of course, it's obvious that the deniers don't have a leg to stand on. The most laughable thing I've seen lately is the quoting of a scientist as saying there hasn't been warming in 15 years at the same time that they're bashing him for poor record keeping. You can't have it both ways!!!
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Foxtrot
I repeat What the fucking fuck?
If you keep repeatuing the same crap, so will I.
Of course, it's obvious that the deniers don't have a leg to stand on. The most laughable thing I've seen lately is the quoting of a scientist as saying there hasn't been warming in 15 years at the same time that they're bashing him for poor record keeping. You can't have it both ways!!!
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Foxtrot
I repeat What the fucking fuck?
If you keep repeatuing the same crap, so will I.
Of course, it's obvious that the deniers don't have a leg to stand on. The most laughable thing I've seen lately is the quoting of a scientist as saying there hasn't been warming in 15 years at the same time that they're bashing him for poor record keeping. You can't have it both ways!!!
No konrad, poor konrad,
It is you clowns that are trying to have it both ways. PJ loses records so he doesn't have to turn them over to sceptics (that's called dodging open debate moron) then when he realizes he's in deep shite he admits that yes in fact there has been no warming since 1998
and now with these so called hearings the world gets to see just how politicised and far removed from actual science the whole cult actually is.
They have screwed themselves over because of this. And we are actually quite happy because now the whole house of cards is going to come down even faster due to their hubris.
Enjoy your moment in the sun because it's going to start getting dark real soon.
Remember the last time AGW went before an open court it lost it's ass. It's coming again real soon.
If you keep repeatuing the same crap, so will I.
Of course, it's obvious that the deniers don't have a leg to stand on. The most laughable thing I've seen lately is the quoting of a scientist as saying there hasn't been warming in 15 years at the same time that they're bashing him for poor record keeping. You can't have it both ways!!!
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes
BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Isn't that the same guy who's records are poor. Why would you believe him, except that he's confirming your prejudice? It's laughable that you would post that cite. You can't prove the veracity of a statement just by repeating it and on top of it repeating something from someone that in other threads deniers have bashed for his record keeping. You're talking in circles, westy. I guess that's what you have to do when you've lost the scientific battle.
