How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth? It's a hoax for money

[ColonelAngus]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose | Daily Mail Online

"They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact."

Snowflakes are realityphobic. Truthphobic? They are liars,

 

[edthecynic]

How can we trust David Rose when he keeps getting caught lying.

 

[Lakhota]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose | Daily Mail Online

"They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact."

Snowflakes are realityphobic. Truthphobic? They are liars,

Please stop posting lies and fake news.

On 4 February 2017, the British tabloid Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail‘s online site) published an article by David Rose — a longtime proponent of climate change conspiracy theories whose analyses the scientific community widely regards as flawed and deceptive — alleging that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used misleading data in order to rush publication of a groundbreaking climate study and thereby “dupe” world leaders:

Much More: NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data - Snopes.com

 

[The Irish Ram]

Please stop posting Snopes.bullshit........

 

[tyroneweaver]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose | Daily Mail Online

"They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact."

Snowflakes are realityphobic. Truthphobic? They are liars,

global warming alarmist receive funds in direct proportion to the data they put out.

 

[edthecynic]

Please stop posting Snopes.bullshit........

Factcheck: Mail on Sunday's 'astonishing evidence' about global temperature rise | Carbon Brief

 

[edthecynic]

global warming alarmist receive funds in direct proportion to the data they put out.

global warming deniers receive funds in direct proportion to the lies they put out.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am not a skeptic that there is human influence from humans on the climate. I am however a skeptic of how much, how fast, and the severity of human influence on the climate. I remember from the late 1990s that by now the polar ice caps were to have melted, our costal cities were to be submerged, and the polar bears would be gone. Yes, I am a skeptic!

 

[ColonelAngus]

If the scientists are cherry picking data that supports their hypothesis, are they following the scientific method?

Have snowflakes now decided the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is culturally biased or some stupid shit, or do they claim to still follow it?

 

[Old Rocks]

I am not a skeptic that there is human influence from humans on the climate. I am however a skeptic of how much, how fast, and the severity of human influence on the climate. I remember from the late 1990s that by now the polar ice caps were to have melted, our costal cities were to be submerged, and the polar bears would be gone. Yes, I am a skeptic!

Link? You assholes all make these claims, but never link to a credible source.

What I saw in the 1990's in the journals was that by the end of the 21st century we would see the Northwest Passage open up, and, maybe, even a year or two when the Arctic Ocean would be free of ice briefly.

The Northwest Passage first opened on 2007. And we may well see an ice free Arctic Ocean for a brief time this year. We have actually seen brief melt periods three times this year during the polar night.

 

[Lakhota]

If the scientists are cherry picking data that supports their hypothesis, are they following the scientific method?

Have snowflakes now decided the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is culturally biased or some stupid shit, or do they claim to still follow it?

Only NaziCons say they are cherry picking.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the scientists are cherry picking data that supports their hypothesis, are they following the scientific method?

Have snowflakes now decided the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is culturally biased or some stupid shit, or do they claim to still follow it?

I am not going to ask if you are that fucking stupid, for obviously you are. How do you argue with the melting of the Alpine glaciers worldwide? The melt of the Greenland Ice Cap? The continued diminution of the Arctic Ice, both in extant and volume?

The scientific method is that you formulate a hypothesis to explain an observation, then test the hypothesis against further observations. The theory of GHGs causing global warming stands up very well, and there has been no other successful explanation for the changes that we are seeing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the scientists are cherry picking data that supports their hypothesis, are they following the scientific method?

Have snowflakes now decided the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is culturally biased or some stupid shit, or do they claim to still follow it?

I am not going to ask if you are that fucking stupid, for obviously you are. How do you argue with the melting of the Alpine glaciers worldwide? The melt of the Greenland Ice Cap? The continued diminution of the Arctic Ice, both in extant and volume?

The scientific method is that you formulate a hypothesis to explain an observation, then test the hypothesis against further observations. The theory of GHGs causing global warming stands up very well, and there has been no other successful explanation for the changes that we are seeing.

Could it be uhm, I don't know......









That we are still leaving an Ice Age?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it could not be, dumb ass. As a matter of fact, by the Milankovic Cycles, we should be slowly sliding toward a new ice age. And, indeed, we were, until we started burning fossil fuels by the gigaton in the industrial revolution.