eh i'm hungover this morning and just skimmed the article trying to figure out what it was about, what is this about for us that are braindead this morning?

This from one of the links:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of themost prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I�ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will �peer review� be used to shout down sceptics.

It is November 20, 10:24 am, and I'm wearing shorts in Toronto, Ontario. Theres definetly some global warming going around.

then why did OP take that link off?

 

Originally Posted by tkeat1653

then why did OP take that link off?

Here

�has anyone read "Superfreakonomics"? hubby's reading it now and was telling me about how in it they talk about a think tank that has figured out how to correct global warming for the relatively minor sum of ~$2?0 billion (i don't remember the # and he has the book with him, but it was in the two hundreds) - not sure of the merits, but def thought it was interesting

obv i'm nowhere near an expert on any of this and, whether or not manmade global warming exists to the extent of reports, we obv need to take whatever measures we can to reduce pollution and waste�

and yeah, ginwilly, i agree that the american public is generally stupid

 

Originally Posted by gentleben

Because it was easier than having to argue with someone as close-minded as yourself. Please learn that while the source should be considered when reading, even the most biased opinion will have some sort of substance to it (unless it is completely fabricated, which doesn't appear to be the case here). I guess I should rephrase my earlier point. It is sometimes ok to question the source, but to dismiss something out of hand because the source disagrees with your politics or has a sarcastic bio is ridiculous and takes away from your credibility.

close minded? biased opinion? Refer to any of Echelon's previous posts to understand my criticism.

A) You didn't attack his bias, but that of the article.
B) Even if he is close minded, dismissing things based on the source shows that you are too. It's not ok for either of you.
C) This is incredibly interesting material which may indicate the disclosure of the biggest scandal in our lifetimes, certainly in mine. It further calls into question a field of science that has long had question marks around it. If nothing else you should read it and consider the implications of these emails. Just read the emails and not the commentary. That should shield you from their bias.

 

Originally Posted by gentleben

A) You didn't attack his bias, but that of the article.
B) Even if he is close minded, dismissing things based on the source shows that you are too. It's not ok for either of you.
C) This is incredibly interesting material which may indicate the disclosure of the biggest scandal in our lifetimes, certainly in mine. It further calls into question a field of science that has long had question marks around it. If nothing else you should read it and consider the implications of these emails. Just read the emails and not the commentary. That should shield you from their bias.

holy shit balls. Completely over your head bro. Take a minute a think about it.

Look at Earth's history. We actually need to worry about the another Ice Age instead of global warming.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

ok Tkeat, you attacked his source, he put up a better one. Then you attack the poster (which is cool btw, even Ech will admit he likes to stir the pot, it's his thing), but have you read any of it? and are you willing to admit it's pretty shady?

yes, i read it and yes, its shady and provides *very possible evidence that will surely change a lot of minds.

The poster attacked me for attacking his source, which was replaced by a better one by Echelon. Not sure how you classify that as me attacking the poster, who attacked me for the wrong reason.

i really miss Underdog in threads like this.

I love how people always say we need to stop littering cause it's destroying the earth. LoooooooooL, it's not affecting the earth at all. It's affecting the people.

eh, well i'm sure people polluting the earth has its negative consequences, and it would still be in our best interest to keep pollution down, but it's good to know that it's not some big life-ending issue like people have been making it out to be.

is it possible to revoke a Nobel Prize? if so...GG Al Gore...

I thought global warming was made up by a bunch of lazy hippies that can't afford SUV's?