Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an 'F'

[konradv]

So what if an article has a hockey stick graph? An honest discussion requires that ALL data be analyzed, NOT censored, as you seem to want. "Hide the science" is the deniers' mantra, because all they're interested in is the political aspect of the question.

 

[Oddball]

"Hide the science" is the mantra of the crooks at Penn State, CRU, UCAR and NCAR, who evade FOIA requests because all they're interested in is the political aspect of the question, projectasaurus rex.

 

[Si modo]

So what if an article has a hockey stick graph? An honest discussion requires that ALL data be analyzed, NOT censored, as you seem to want. "Hide the science" is the deniers' mantra, because all they're interested in is the political aspect of the question.

Fabricated data is not data.

I honestly cannot believe some of the things you post. What foolishness.

 

[gslack]

So what if an article has a hockey stick graph? An honest discussion requires that ALL data be analyzed, NOT censored, as you seem to want. "Hide the science" is the deniers' mantra, because all they're interested in is the political aspect of the question.

UNBELIEVABLE!

Do you even realize the hockey stick is a known and proven fallacy? Do even know what that means? First go look up the word fallacy, then go and look the hockey stick graph, and then when you grow up come back and speak again junior.....

Dude your ignorance and immaturity have really tried my patience now.

OLDSOCKS get your ignorant kid off the board please.... He/she/it has become a nuissance....

 

[westwall]

Do you really stand by this comment? Really???? C'mon...you're joking aren't you? Really...you have to be joking with this comment ...right???

So what if an article has a hockey stick graph? An honest discussion requires that ALL data be analyzed, NOT censored, as you seem to want. "Hide the science" is the deniers' mantra, because all they're interested in is the political aspect of the question.

 

[konradv]

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.

 

[Si modo]

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.

What are the 'deniers' denying?

 

[gslack]

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.

DO NOT even speak of science and especially not logic.... You cannot even begin to understand any of this moron and your inane posts attest to this...

 

[Si modo]

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.

DO NOT even speak of science and especially not logic.... You cannot even begin to understand any of this moron and your inane posts attest to this...

He can't even focus on any point. He says he is serious about the data in the Mann graph, yet he brings up the sophomore chemistry IR strawman. And, just for garnish, he tosses in the old standby, 'deniers'. He will not answer what they deny, though; at least he hasn't in the past.

He obviously can't even figure out how to articulate clearly a point.

 

[gslack]

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.

DO NOT even speak of science and especially not logic.... You cannot even begin to understand any of this moron and your inane posts attest to this...

He can't even focus on any point. He says he is serious about the data in the Mann graph, yet he brings up the sophomore chemistry IR strawman. And, just for garnish, he tosses in the old standby, 'deniers'. He will not answer what they deny, though; at least he hasn't in the past.

He obviously can't even figure out how to clearly articulate a point.

I am pretty sure he is someone's ignorant kid with no supervision....

 

[westwall]

konradv,

Have you ever taken a science class in school? Suggesting that a discussion use proven false information is like convicting someone of murder due to perjured(that's lying if you didn't know what it meant) testimony. Please imagine yourself in a court of law knowing you did nothing wrong and having a person you don't know (or worse someone you do know who you thought liked you) lie to the jury and you get convicted and sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit.
That is what your suggestion means. That is why no one can believe you said it. That is why people are wondering how old you are or what your mental state is. Do you understand now, just how ridiculous your comment was?

And as far as your continued harping on CO2 and warming and all of that, I suggest you read the following.

Some Comments on Earth?s ?Missing Energy? Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

I'm AM serious. When have deniers really looked at the logic of the situation? More CO2, more trapped radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. If you're still a denier after thinking about that, you've proved my point.