Is climate change the new race card ???

[owebo]

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You can't think, thus our laughing at you....

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

Russians?

 

[bripat9643]

I can see how you hate the truth.....you're a liberal....

Anglian.....sorry, my iPad is liberal too....

Climategate was debunked a gazillion timers yet you still believe it. I'm still laughing at you for that one.

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

 

[Slade3200]

Climategate was debunked a gazillion timers yet you still believe it. I'm still laughing at you for that one.

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

 

[owebo]

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

All the settled scientists agree with you....

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

 

[Slade3200]

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

 

[bripat9643]

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

You can link to committees that were exposed as blatant white washes. The committees you refer to were stacked with warmer cultists who have a vested interest in perpetuating the con.

You can believe what the criminal cultists who run the AGW conspiracy said with their own words when they thought no one was looking. That is what Climategate was all about.

 

[RealDave]

Climategate was debunked a gazillion timers yet you still believe it. I'm still laughing at you for that one.

No it wasn't turd. Your whitewashes didn't debunk a thing except the reputations of the douche bags who organized and participated in them.

Tell. us. What was true about Climategate.

It was all true. like the Wikileaks emails, it was all original documents and emails.

What was false about it?

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

You claimed there was all this bad stuff yet you are unable to produce a sample.

One example. It can't be that difficult/......unless you are lying.

 

[RealDave]

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

You can link to committees that were exposed as blatant white washes. The committees you refer to were stacked with warmer cultists who have a vested interest in perpetuating the con.

You can believe what the criminal cultists who run the AGW conspiracy said with their own words when they thought no one was looking. That is what Climategate was all about.

Those who say there is MMGW far outnumber your team, Bucko.

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

You can link to committees that were exposed as blatant white washes. The committees you refer to were stacked with warmer cultists who have a vested interest in perpetuating the con.

You can believe what the criminal cultists who run the AGW conspiracy said with their own words when they thought no one was looking. That is what Climategate was all about.

Those who say there is MMGW far outnumber your team, Bucko.

Truth isn't determined by majority vote. You obviously don't understand the first thing about science.

 

[Slade3200]

So you don't know what was in it. Just as I thought.

You obviously can't tell us what was in it that wasn't true.

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

You can link to committees that were exposed as blatant white washes. The committees you refer to were stacked with warmer cultists who have a vested interest in perpetuating the con.

You can believe what the criminal cultists who run the AGW conspiracy said with their own words when they thought no one was looking. That is what Climategate was all about.

You want to believe what fits your narrative. There is much more evidence backing up the science than not. More studies, more committees, more professionals. Skeptics are fine, I have no problem with them as they help keep things objective, but in this case the conspiracy would have to be so huge and so many professionals would have to be ok bending their ethics and risking their reputations to lie about the science, it makes your claims statistically much more improbable than the alternative of a small number of oppositionist casting doubt and critique on the findings and method.

 

[RealDave]

It was investigated by 8 committees who all concluded the science was not manipulated.

You mean it was whitewashed by 8 committees. All those committees were stacked with warmist hacks.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Michael Mann And The ClimateGate Whitewash: Part One

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

I can do the link thing too... now the big question... what to believe and why? Are we each just choosing to believe the facts that support our narrative or is there another factor we can use?? quantity, quality, and reputation of the authors or people conducting the studies perhaps??

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

You can link to committees that were exposed as blatant white washes. The committees you refer to were stacked with warmer cultists who have a vested interest in perpetuating the con.

You can believe what the criminal cultists who run the AGW conspiracy said with their own words when they thought no one was looking. That is what Climategate was all about.

Those who say there is MMGW far outnumber your team, Bucko.

Truth isn't determined by majority vote. You obviously don't understand the first thing about science.

More agreeing is not a vote. It is a consensus of climate scientists through research & peer review.