retep Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Jibbo, it must take quite some effort to think a paper that has concluded Climate Change has increased food prices "wheat, maize, rice and soya by 5 per cent" is somehow is a reason to disbelieve global warming. Or an extremely dim mind to realise, "However, global warming does not appear to have affected the production of rice and soybean. The U.S., which grows more soybean and maize than any other country, experienced 'a slight cooling trend' and its output was not affected, the researchers said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 You're wrong- the emails were hacked, and showed that academics are human. The science of it was unaffected. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13300058 Oh dear, how gullible are you? The so-called investigation into Climategate was a whitewash, and as the BBC are in the pockets of the globalwarming lobby, the BBC article you link to is little more than propaganda. I don't know how many thousands of links the likes of Phanerothyme and Wildcat have posted on this thread, but I've yet to find one single credible source that doesn't have an interest in promoting the increasingly tiresome myth of global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Or an extremely dim mind to realise, "However, global warming does not appear to have affected the production of rice and soybean. The U.S., which grows more soybean and maize than any other country, experienced 'a slight cooling trend' and its output was not affected, the researchers said." I guess you would have to be extremely dim to take a sentence asserting global warming, as the first one does, to mean the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Oh dear, how gullible are you? The so-called investigation into Climategate was a whitewash, and as the BBC are in the pockets of the globalwarming lobby, the BBC article you link to is little more than propaganda. I don't know how many thousands of links the likes of Phanerothyme and Wildcat have posted on this thread, but I've yet to find one single credible source that doesn't have an interest in promoting the increasingly tiresome myth of global warming. So the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Lord Oxburgh's Science Assessment panel, Pennsylvania University and the UEA's Independent review were all part of a whitewash. And the BBC is in the pockets of the global warming lobby (whoever they are). As for "yet to find one single credible source that doesn't have an interest in promoting the increasingly tiresome myth of global warming" - I guess that includes all the major scientific establishments across the globe in the conspiracy too. That is quite some theory. Since you are talking about credible sources and gullibility, may I ask what evidence you have for this global conspiracy theory of unprecedented proportions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I guess you would have to be extremely dim to take a sentence asserting global warming, as the first one does, to mean the opposite. Or even dimmer to not recognise a load of bullchit when you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Or even dimmer to not recognise a load of bullchit when you see it. Perhaps you could provide a reason for disbelieving the consensus of scientific opinion across the globe on the topic of global warming? How is it so apparent to you Convert, Jibbs, Cyclone etc that the scientific establishment has it all wrong based on the opinions of right-wing free-market ideologues and oil backed researchers with no credibility who's argument against the scientific establishment involves a global plot of enormous proportions for which you have no evidence? I would love to believe mankind was not involved in global warming, but I need a reason to do so that goes beyond wishful thinking. There are some very bad smells on this thread... but they are not coming from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Perhaps you could provide a reason for disbelieving the consensus of scientific opinion across the globe on the topic of global warming? How is it so apparent to you Convert, Jibbs, Cyclone etc that the scientific establishment has it all wrong based on the opinions of right-wing free-market ideologues and oil backed researchers with no credibility who's argument against the scientific establishment involves a global plot of enormous proportions for which you have no evidence? I would love to believe mankind was not involved in global warming, but I need a reason to do so that goes beyond wishful thinking. There are some very bad smells on this thread... but they are not coming from me. Perhaps you should open your eyes, and a tick tack wouldn't go amiss try one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Perhaps you should open your eyes, and a tick tack wouldn't go amiss try one. Open my eyes to what? we are on page 120 of a thread where no one has been able to produce any argument or evidence that is plausible to explain how or why the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming is false! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Open my eyes to what? we are on page 120 of a thread where no one has been able to produce any argument or evidence that is plausible to explain how or why the consensus of scientific opinion on global warming is false! Science isn't decided by consensus. I'd suggest you goolge (or look on Wiki) for the scientific method, as it seems to have escaped both you, and the majority of the so called climate 'experts' you keep quoting. Plenty of opposing views have been presented to you, you just dismiss them as they don't agree with the 'consensus', or resort to ad-homs to try and discredit them. The general public has seen enough of this hi level ponzi scheme though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Oh dear, how gullible are you? The so-called investigation into Climategate was a whitewash, and as the BBC are in the pockets of the globalwarming lobby, the BBC article you link to is little more than propaganda. I don't know how many thousands of links the likes of Phanerothyme and Wildcat have posted on this thread, but I've yet to find one single credible source that doesn't have an interest in promoting the increasingly tiresome myth of global warming. Are you saying that global climate change is a myth or anthropogenic global climate change is a myth? I think the unaffected climate myth is certainly the most mythological. And the most damaging if it is false - I've yet to see any evidence that our climate is unchanged by human activity. It would be a miracle if it were not, it's the organisms on the planet that steer the climate towards homeostasis. Or at least they have done in the past 400 million years. Do you have any evidence for the unaffected climate myth that you so tirelessly work to perpetuate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now