SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,965
- 280
Grow up, the premise of the thread is they were caught supplying false data and they did.
Even if that's true it doesn't change anything about what the most qualified people believe based on the evidence we have.
What evidence is that? I constantly ask for a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..and no such evidence is ever forthcoming because no such evidence exists...
I ask for a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...again..no such evidence will ever be forthcoming because no such evidnence exists...
And I point out that there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming, due to our production of greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on those greenhouse gasses. Not a single paper...Lacking such fundamental evidence, what sort of evidence do you believe exists that supports the hypothesis over natural variably?
You think the vast majority of scientists all over the world have come to a similar conclusion based on no significant evidence?
So lets see the "significant" evidence...if it existed, it would be inescapable..it would be on billboards...you guys would have it bookmarked so that you could pile it on skeptics...and if it actually existed, there would be far fewer skeptics...if there were significant evidence that favors the AGW hypothesis over natural variabity, then I would not be a skeptic...the fact is that there is no significant evidence...climate science is built almost entirely on models that have shown themselves to be failures...
And I question the "vast majority" of scientists bullshit...that claim is based on papers that have been demonstrated to be terribly flawed...