I see so you think that governments will only give grants to those who support the IPCC. So now, not only are 97% of climatologists in on the conspiracy but now governments in over 100 countries are on on the fix.Not necessarily a conspiracy. Many of these scientists rely on government grants, all I'm saying is I have a hard time trusting a lot of these guys since Climategate happened
My apologies, Groggy. I didn't realize you don't know what the word "cite" means. Nor do you appear to know the difference between a Table of Contents and an Index (I'll give you a hint: The index appears at the back of the book, and is usually listed in alphabetical order.)Yes, that's right, that my dimwitted friend, that is called an index.
You really have to work on this citing business, you know.Here is what I actually cited: Page 202 of Chapter 7 in the IPCC's first assessment report.
Since you apparently can't understand how to use a Table of Contents, here is the more specific link: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
Listen up here, dumbass. We have government corruption everywhere, we have NSA spying on their own politicians, we have NSA spying on ordinary citizens, we have IRS going after TEA party members when they're not supposed to engage in political witch-hunts. All this has been confirmed by Snowden as well as other people. And last but not least, we have ClimategateI see so you think that governments will only give grants to those who support the IPCC. So now, not only are 97% of climatologists in on the conspiracy but now governments in over 100 countries are on on the fix.
You really are making a compelling case here.
A case that shows you to a paranoid idiot.
Nice work.
So because of this, we throw out 'everything' published on GW, because the government is rotten, corrupt, wrong, ineffective? Then you bail out big time by saying you have no evidence.Listen up here, dumbass. We have government corruption everywhere, we have NSA spying on their own politicians, we have NSA spying on ordinary citizens, we have IRS going after TEA party members when they're not supposed to engage in political witch-hunts. All this has been confirmed by Snowden as well as other people. And last but not least, we have Climategate
You really think IPCC is above corruption, especially when there's billions of dollars worth in grants and other money involved??!! How stupid and naive can you get??!!
I'm not saying I have any evidence IPCC is corrupt, but I simply dont trust them anymore and it wouldnt surprise me if they were. After all the IPCC could just claim they made a mistake in their data collection, and nobody would go to jail because its not against the law to make mistakes
The IPCC represents thousands of scientists from over a hundred countries who have worked and written thousands of individual papers. The chances that they are all corrupt towards the same goal and that governments are trying to support this conspiracy goal by funding only those who support the IPCC's findings is so ridiculous as a conspiracy theory that it makes all other conspiracy theories look plausible.Listen up here, dumbass. We have government corruption everywhere, we have NSA spying on their own politicians, we have NSA spying on ordinary citizens, we have IRS going after TEA party members when they're not supposed to engage in political witch-hunts. All this has been confirmed by Snowden as well as other people. And last but not least, we have Climategate
You really think IPCC is above corruption, especially when there's billions of dollars worth in grants and other money involved??!! How stupid and naive can you get??!!
I'm not saying I have any evidence IPCC is corrupt, but I simply dont trust them anymore and it wouldnt surprise me if they were. After all the IPCC could just claim they made a mistake in their data collection, and nobody would go to jail because its not against the law to make mistakes
I'm not the one who gets their information from oil funded, ex-tobacco lobbyists and thinks that it is objective.Groggy, you're a gullible fool
No, you're the one who thinks that among the tens of thousands of climatologists, 97% are corrupt and that they are working in collusion with over 100 governments in a conspiracy so vague you can't even name their motive. And you're the person who thinks oil funded hackers, creationists and lobbyists are the only ones who can see the truth.I'm not the one who gets their information from $billion dollar grant, government funded organizations, and think its objective
Unless you have sources for all the 1000's of research projects doing GW, you're have no freakin' idea what you're talking about, not new, and are just farting smoke out your ass. You clearly have never participated in lab or field research or ade a presentation for research, so are just flapping you cake hole. Much research done by NASA is funded by private sources, not automatically the government, but then you've shown you don't need evidence to make allegations. In general about 70% of all research is funded privately.I'm not the one who gets their information from $billion dollar grant, government funded organizations, and think its objective
I'll take it that this means you are out of arguments and despite having lost every point will now sit in the corner, sulk and call people names.The fact global warming crowd has officer dumbrock in their corner should pretty much sum it all up for you
Only to idiots.The fact global warming crowd has officer dumbrock in their corner should pretty much sum it all up for you
LoLOnly to idiots.
Clearly you're running out of creditable point, after nearly a 1000 posts, so have reverted to this. Knew you would look up the research councils
You might wanna go through entire thread and see who started the name-calling.I'll take it that this means you are out of arguments and despite having lost every point will now sit in the corner, sulk and call people names
You mean how you admitted it when you fell for my ruse??A real man would admit he is wrong
I admitted I skimmed your post.You might wanna go through entire thread and see who started the name-calling.
HINT: handle starts with a "g"
You mean how you admitted it when you fell for my ruse??
Nuff said for now, you're post speaks for itself as to your intelect.LoL
...................
Thats not the only thing you skimmed. You skimmed the entire IPCC website.I admitted I skimmed your post.
And that it won't happen again
My reasoning is thousands of scientists working for decades aren't likely to be wrong at all.Thats not the only thing you skimmed. You skimmed the entire IPCC website.
You're reasoning is "1,000 scientists can't be wrong". Even though you dont understand a lick of the science yourself
