Global warming, more like global hoax.

[Kalam]

NA =/= the whole world.

Shocking, I know.

It's a safe assumption that yours do, too.

[Xant]

It's a safe assumption that yours do, too.

Shows you just how wrong safe assumptions can be. Wonder what other safe assumptions you have that are false?

[Kirbyy]

I hate you. 

[Kalam]

Shows you just how wrong safe assumptions can be. Wonder what other safe assumptions you have that are false?

Are you telling me it's wrong? Who else agrees with you?

Are you telling me you disagree with climate change? Why should we believe you? Please give us a longer list of evidence against climate change.

Also, are you practicing for a career in politics, education, or law?

[Xant]

Are you telling me it's wrong? Who else agrees with you?

Yes. Phyrex is widely considered to be the best duelist EU side, at least he's the one most people would agree on. And then we have people like Bjord, Hearst, Cicero(ololo), Atze... pretty much all of the top EU duelists are or were dedicated 2handers in the Good Times; certainly they played 2handers as their mains, and people are biased when it comes to their mains, alts can be disregarded at will. And Phyrex is the dedicated 2hander, he played with nothing else and is the father of lolstab.

[Lt_Anders]

Are you telling me you disagree with climate change? Why should we believe you? Please give us a longer list of evidence against climate change.

No one here is disagreeing with it. The majority disagree with the fact that it's "Caused/Aggrivated" by humans.

The list of Evidence that Humans do it, is nothing more than a money maker for those in the "Clean" business. I've talked to statisticians who actually do this(a reputable one at my college who's considered amongst the best: Dr. Don Resio) and he agrees that people on both sides "make up" data to fit a paradigm.

[Kalam]

Yes. Phyrex is widely considered to be the best duelist EU side, at least he's the one most people would agree on. And then we have people like Bjord, Hearst, Cicero(ololo), Atze... pretty much all of the top EU duelists are or were dedicated 2handers in the Good Times; certainly they played 2handers as their mains, and people are biased when it comes to their mains, alts can be disregarded at will. And Phyrex is the dedicated 2hander, he played with nothing else and is the father of lolstab.

Alright. That's odd to me, since you'd think you would benefit from a better understanding of every opponent if you'd played in every class. I concede that to you.


http://tothepoles.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/melting-ice-hot-topic/


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/11/205330/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/09/09/with-climate-journalism-like-this-who-needs-fiction/#.Uob8weK-O2A

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cooler-year-fails-to-shift-long-term-trend-of-arctic-sea-ice-melting

No one here is disagreeing with it. The majority disagree with the fact that it's "Caused/Aggrivated" by humans.

The list of Evidence that Humans do it, is nothing more than a money maker for those in the "Clean" business. I've talked to statisticians who actually do this(a reputable one at my college who's considered amongst the best: Dr. Don Resio) and he agrees that people on both sides "make up" data to fit a paradigm.

Ach. Now I have to wait till Huey graduates and studies this shit to get someone to do the work for me. I will never take the time to figure out how to do my own synthesis experiments.

[NuberT]

Its not like all scientist agree on global warming, those who disagree are just ignored by the mass media..

ipcc report debunked http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf thats just the summary.

here is the whole thing: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/ccr2physicalscience.html not that anyone of you would even read the summary

[Molly]

[...]and he agrees that people on both sides "make up" data to fit a paradigm.

That's the whole point of statistics...

[Huscarlton_Banks]

That paper is not peer reviewed and was published by Heartland, a conservative think tank noted for attacking the link between second-hand smoke and health risks, and the risks of acid rain.

It's really hard to believe that they're neutral on this without peer review.

Heartland’s funding over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund.

On the remarks about the Chinese Academy of Sciences research:

http://english.llas.cas.cn/ns/es/201306/t20130615_104626.html

[Paul]

People love to have a view differing from the consensus among the scientific community. It gives a feeling of superiority over other, less "sceptical" people. But if one takes a closer look at the alternatives, their shadyness is ofter several magnitudes higher. You are all wrong anyway. Time cube is the only truth.

[NuberT]

That paper is not peer reviewed and was published by Heartland, a conservative think tank noted for attacking the link between second-hand smoke and health risks, and the risks of acid rain.

It's really hard to believe that they're neutral on this without peer review.

On the remarks about the Chinese Academy of Sciences research:

http://english.llas.cas.cn/ns/es/201306/t20130615_104626.html

So what? the people from the ipcc get their money streight from god himself or what?

[Paul]

No, but close. It's the UN afaik.

[Overdriven]

i dont listen to anything the daily mail says.

I prefer this one.

[Huscarlton_Banks]

So what? the people from the ipcc get their money streight from god himself or what?

People can claim "hey, some scientists might be getting paid to make claims that will make governments subsidize green technology, so their work is biased and not worthy of trust", but you can't say in the same breath "Hey this paper made by scientists who are definitely getting paid by private companies that have a self-interest in the results is totally legit". 

The IPCC is funded by the UN and bases its reports on the peer reviewed work. It does not pay scientists for contributing their work.

It is extremely shady that:

They named their group NIPCC and published their work under that name (presumably to brand themselves to be as credible as the IPCC) without independent peer review.
They receive large amounts of funding from oil companies.
They claimed to have the endorsement of the CAS, but they do not.