It happens that landotter formulated :
On Dec 10, 10:52*am, sam booka wrote:
landotter tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" news:86464bc1-d43d-4aac-a262-
:
On Dec 10, 9:34 am, flipper wrote:
[moronsnip]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/
[moronsnip]
Roy Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design"--the crackpotiest
of crackpot "theories". Really--what more needs to be said other than,
**** off you ignorant dooshnoozle?
Every single reputable scientific body
... that got caught cheating and has now lost all credibility...
*vs. ... a young Earth
creationist.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Perhaps you should get his Ph.D. revoked then, although it is clear that
you are nutz. Let me know how that goes for you...
In the meantime, astrophysicists are predicting Global Warming up until
2040 from our present state of cooling for 10 years (when the recently
discovered fraudulently manipulated and poorly collected data is
chucked.) Their methods appear to stand up to peer review, as do Dr. Roy
Spencer's.
No they don't stand up to peer review. You are lying.
Unfortunately, after that they appear to say it will cool off
again, based on tracking the prime climate driver, solar activity cycles.
Which scientific bodies say this? The Young Earth Creation
Dooshbaggery Union?
Better go debunk them too. Good luck because it looks like their methods
fit backwards for hundreds of millenia.
If a crackpot theory isn't good enough for any legitimate scientific
organization to recognize, then I'll take a pass. However--you seem so
desperate for evidence for a politically formed opinion that you'll
listen to ****ing flat earth creationists.
jeezus, where do I start...
Ok, about peer review....
how can anyone accept the concept of peer review when it is stated in
the "East Anglia"emails that there were attempts to discredit
contradictory science via the peer review process?
Any time there is data that does not match the official land
temperature data it is dismissed, or massaged away. like the way
satellite readings of temperature have been changed to match the
official land temperature, however they still can not explain why the
lower atmosphere temperature readings don't reflect their estimates
based on the "official land temperatures".
When tree ring data didn't support their theory what did they do? the
ommited the data that didn't match.
They never considered the problem may lie in the way they collect real
temperaure data. Why? because they could control that, they could make
it appear to support their theory.