You continue to mention corruption without demonstrating it, and you haven't shown where data has been falsified. Considering how strong the evidence and consensus are in favor of climate change, your position is nothing more than an argument from conspiracy.

I hope you are also aware that most, if not all, fields of science are recipient of government funding. Are you prepared to discredit all those fields?

 

As I said earlier, political discussion is not allowed. All my sources for distrusting it are of a political nature. I CAN'T post them. If you really are interested in seeing it though, check out what info you can find on UN Agenda 21. Especially in relation to climate change. The environmental laws passed ( as well as EPA rules which bypass congress ) are essential to fulfilling the agenda.

 

You know how u get excited while watching x-files when cigarette smoking man comes on? THIS FUCKING THREAD.

 

 

farting dinosaurs.

id they sneezed and burped at the same time too?

 

Yes.

 

Uh oh llama dude, you got told sooooooon

Next time might wanna do a bit of research n b research i mean reading the bible

*books of god High five with insane galvy*

 

The relevant passages effectively say ad nauseum, "we need to do more research, monitoring, cooperating and information sharing". 20 years later and that's still the course of action we should be taking. This is hardly revealing or damning.

If all you can present is conspiracy, then I'm done.

 

Well, it's not "conspiracy" so to speak, if there is more than ample evidence to prove it. You just have to be willing to look for it. Quite frankly, it's not that hard to find. It's all over the net. It's just called "crazy talk" by those that don't want you looking into it because they want you to keep believing the "research" they fund. But whatever. If you choose to continue to trust those that are untrustworthy simple because they talk a good game, that's your choice. I also agree this has run it's course. Without a mod giving permission to post links to sites with political content, I can't really provide any information more than I have.

 

You basically just countered "make something other than conspiracy theories" with a conspiracy theory.

 

Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't immediately make it untrue.

Wow! Some people really take to media brain washing more than others. lol

 

Simply because you don't understand something, that doesn't mean that the manufactured counter-position is as equally valid as one based upon overwhelming evidence, including observed change consistent with anthropogenic forcing.

 

I'm sorry which position was manufactured?

Wash rinse reapeat.

 

I think some of the people in this thread are literally insane. Scientists are forming a giant conspiracy about the names of certain elements? Please.

 

Those damn Romans using the latin word "carbo" for coal... and they also invented the word sinister (sinestra)! And they're the guys who developed a lot of the nomenclature used in modern academia and science... OMG THEYRE BEHIND IT!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...ion-for-dissenters.html?_r=1&ref=justingillis

The New York Times had an interesting article that, while I think has some exaggeration and inaccuracy, does a pretty good job of outlining how the "debate" regarding science is going on inside the scientific community. It outlines how one researcher (with a respected body of work) is pursuing an alternate theory / mechanism to what many ascribe to. He uses actual results and testing to back up his theory, which has garnered criticism from other scientists to such a degree that it was rejected from a prestigious journal and was published in a somewhat less prestigious one instead. He hasn't been hounded out of the scientific community for his views, and has actually been encouraged to continue his research, even if his theories and methods are considered discredited by most.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette - telegram.com - Pre-dinosaur extinction killed 95% of sea species

The same issue also contained an article on "The Great Dying", aka the Permian collapse, which bears implications to the implications of current ocean acidifications, and was an interesting read about how current climate science and paleontology overlap at times.

 

That is not at all what I said. The government agencies ( with one person at the head calling the shots ) use the elemental name instead of the common name because it's less familiar to the general public and thus easier to deceive them into believing it's a threat. That way they can start manipulating the economy by passing regulations based on the phony threat.

The scientists aren't the problem, it's the government. The scientists are being manipulated just like the average Joe who trusts their results as being without manipulation.

 

This thread is hilarious.

I don't wanna talk to a scientist etc

 

Yeah, I'm done. Good luck finding a tinfoil hat that fits, buddy.

 

... Damn you grimloooooooccccck!!!!

 

I won't get into the whole true or untrue theories abounding here.

I will say for anyone wanting knowledge on it to find the original global warming research papers done by the British that Margaret Thatcher had commisioned......

Also interesting note is the 5000 buoys NASA had in the ocean and collected data from and could not substantiate a rise in tempurature. Data collected was not outside of normal data variances. (which was roughly +- 1 degree) This was in the early to mid 2000's.

I do not doubt what we do impacts things in the world.

I am more amazed at what it has started out as originally versus the twisted version of what it has morphed into today.