Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

No we are talking scientists that are corrupting Global warming data for grants

 

I am sure what evidence there is you will deny. Just like you refuse to admit Monnet was corrupt in his polar bear paper

 

Yet GW scientists ignore it when talking about warming.

 

there is plenty of evidence of deliberate lies on the part of the denialists - but where are the deliberate lies on the part of climate scientists?

 

do you have evidence of that?

I have never seen ANY climate scientist discussing our region who has ignored ENSO - although some have discussed that with climate change we would experience more extreme weather events (eg increased droughts/increased flooding) which does seem to be happening here in the southern hemisphere.

 

I showed on this thread with the polar bear scientist investigation. Then of course there was using September Temps to claim hottest October and of course the Himalaya scam

 

I have no idea whether it was or not. I'm not sure that he would have a clue what you are on about, either.

 

re the Himalaya "scam"

I think one parapgraph in a thousand page document having incorrect information is sloppy in a document of that calibre - but it is not dishonest.

on the other hand, the oregon petition and various other lie sites are scams - and deliberately dishonest.

WRT the polar bear issue.

find a legit site which discusses that Monnet deliberately presented false information re the polar bears.

and no - I don't mean some little down home folksy "we-gotta-take-a-united-stand-agin-dem-nasty-treehuggin-librul-hippies" site

 

You refuse to address the corruption when it is presented

 

Corruption is now sloppy and it gets a pass if it promotes Global Warming. Typical liberal spin.

I posted the link her it shows that Monett is being investigated Post#77

Funny how deniers are liars but GW promoters make mistakes. This show why Gw has no credibility and their hypocrisy and double standard

 

shoe, other foot.

the denialist movement is spawned in corruption paid for by certain industry sectors. It has had publicists (not scientists) playing a lead role in making statements that are based on lies, and it had the ear of governments in the US and Australia for most of the last decade.

nobody with any intelligence, can seriously doubt AGW is happening. Denialists feed their lies to the ignorant and the uninformed. there are a lot of them in the US especially which has a very poor record internationally in science education.

countries where science education rates highly do not have th elevel of scepticism found in the US.

interestingly, in my frequenting of forums, many climate change deniers also don't believe evolutionary theory.

that says a lot.

 

no. corruption actually has a meaning.

the "glaciergate" issue wouldn't even rate as academic misconduct.

however, deliberately misrepresenting facts IS lying, pure and simple.

and I suspect you didn't read the article itself - if you think the investigation is because he told lies about global warming ... even the rightwing news sources you refer to baulk at printing outright lies in the text of the article.

 

There you go again you will not address the corruption instead you go on a rant about what you call deniers

 

It was in the IPCC report and they got caught. So yes they tried to deceive the public and governments. That is corruption and shows they have no credibility and can not be trusted.

 

Your denier cult delusions are pathetic.

 

Your avoiding the facts of deception and lies from the GW community shows your bias and lack of credibility and shows facts and truth do not matter to you only your false agenda matters

 

you haven't really provided any evidence that can substantiate your claims.

its as if you believe that if you say it often enough, it will be true.

 

I see you have no experience in writing papers.

academia is known for nit picking - and would regard that as sloppy scholarship and - in a published article, a retraction would be printed (and I am pretty sure there was a statement to that effect)

you take the meaning of nit picking to a whole new level.

I could sell you a molehill to go skiing on.

 

You foolishly and uncritically swallow the lies you are fed by people who have a very large financial stake in selling fossil fuels. It is you and your anti-science denier cult sources who have no credibility.

 

I have provided evidence you just have not read it. I even gave you a post number so you could go to the link. It is you that goes on rants with opinions and nothing else

 

No you just give GW a pass and condemn what you call deniers.

Funny how you talk about retractions when the GW community only prints them when they are caught in their lies and deceptions

 

Wrong I have shown a federal investigation to the polar bear paper.


That is more of your talking points when you have nothing to respond with

 

did you even read the article you linked to?

 

What is your point? It shows his wife was one of the persons doing the peer review. He was not there to look for polar bears he was there looking for whales. He also did no investigations as to how or why the bears died.

 

when you start to examine the lies in the denialist camp, then I'll be interested in your opinion.

until then, you just look like a schill for people who are denigrating virtually the entire scientific community for short term profits.

the fact that China is ahead of you guys on this is going to cost the ordinary american - and do you think your oil buddies will be interested in giving you handouts then?