More Climate Data Problems
NASA stonewalled FOIA requests. Potential data problems. Meanwhile, a complete list of everything caused by global warming. Heh.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 19th, 2010 at 9:58 am
DENIER!!!!!!!
February 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Wow! Great list, and it’s all linky and stuff. It left out “former scientists turned into research-money-grubbing, lying, cheating, stonewalling, political hacks” though. Oh, but that’s not caused by global warming. It’s caused by “man-made global warming invented by a political movement as justification for more expansive government”, which is a bit different.
But don’t you know; they have to withhold information, because people like you aren’t smart enough to interpret it correctly, and if scientific climate data fall into the wrong hands, who knows what might happen?. Those people at NASA, and elsewhere in the “scientific” community are way smarter than you, so they know what to do with the numbers. They keep saying so, therefore it has to be true.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I thought it was all George Bush’s fault?
February 21st, 2010 at 10:34 am
Horner has also written books supporting Creationism, and works for CEI. He’s about as reputable a source on matters AGW as the ASHA is on matters RKBA related.
Why is that some AGW research being funded by govt is instantly indicative of undeniabl
February 21st, 2010 at 10:36 am
….fucking mousepad!
Arggh.
Anyway, ….indicative of undeniable, unrecoverable bias…but a hack like Horner who writes politically motivated attacks on science for money doesn’t raise a red flag for you at all?
Cause he’s saying what you wanna hear, perhaps?
February 21st, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Why is it that you are unwilling to even consider the likelihood that some/most/all of the AGW-supporting data was intentionally generated to support that theory, even when some of that data’s generators are admitting that it was intentionally contrived?
‘Cause that is not what you want to hear, perhaps?
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I’d consider it if you could present even the least little bit of credible evidence to that effect.
The people selling the idea that it was fabricated have serious credibility issues and are constantly being busted for misrepresenting their case and the facts, they’re the same people (Horner, Milloy, McIntyre) who tried to tell us cigarettes aren’t bad for you, and the scientific community hasn’t seen any evidence that the AGW consensus is in any way imperiled.
It’s like asking me why I won’t consider that Bill Clinton didn’t leave that stain on the blue dress or that space aliens actually shot JFK.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Yes, Sebastian, because there is absolutely no indication that any of the data, anywhere, was ever tampered with.
None at all.
Nuh-uh.
Never.
Others have said it before me, and while I was holding out hope, unfortunately they were correct – you are simply not worth the time. We would have to first deal with your ironic denial, then move on to your blatant projection, tend to your seemingly incessant genetic fallacies, and wrap up with your self-referential circular logic before anything even approximating a rational discussion could take place, and I simply do not have the patience for that amount of work. But, do, keep on trolling – faiths of all kinds need adherents like you to bring religiosity to us fuzzy-wuzzies or somesuch.