Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?
Yes
43%
 43%  [ 19 ]
No
56%
 56%  [ 25 ]
Total Votes : 44

Author Message
kevstar31
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 449
Location: Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:56 pm    Post subject: Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? Reply with quote

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/
Quote:
Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

_________________
while(true) std::cout << "Jesus I trust in you." << std::endl;
My Political Compass


Last edited by kevstar31 on Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1117
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread is :lol:
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gasp! Scientists (the gods of non theists) would never lie for political and economic reasons! They are more than mere people! And the United Nations, that paradigm of ethics would never perpetuate the lie!

Wake up and smell the coffee you gullible people. As I've been telling you for years: There is no man made global warming. No, no, I'm sorry, not global warming. I forgot we don't call it that anymore. Let me rephrase. There is no man made climate change.

So just laugh, and blame it all on big oil and George Bush. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

It's no longer getting warmer. The models have been wrong every time. We've got to come up with an excuse.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh yes, let's hack thousands of mails and then cherry-pick "evidence" to "damn" our opponents... :roll:


Here's Climate Progress's take on it.

And RealClimate's answer.

Most notably,

[quote=RealClimate]More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.[/quote]

Unlike what we know from the denialist side...

Quote:
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.


Scientists behaving like scientists! Gasp! Shock!
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big dave
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: land of first world problems

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shash wrote:
...

the point is that when some scientist posts some article in a journal expecting peer review, he better be ready for criticism. too many people equate "published" with "being correct."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big dave wrote:
shash wrote:
...

the point is that when some scientist posts some article in a journal expecting peer review, he better be ready for criticism. too many people equate "published" with "being correct."


Well, these are private mails... Not peer-reviewed journal papers.

Nobody's saying anything against peer review here, are they?

EDIT: And in any case, they're responding to the criticism quite well. Something I don't really see from the denialist side. Repeating your arguments in a louder tone or in tabloid press is not answering problems. Ignoring evidence or cherry-picking results is not scientific criticism or skepticism, either.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shash wrote:
Well, these are private mails... Not peer-reviewed journal papers.

Nobody's saying anything against peer review here, are they?

Well, there is that one email that says:

Quote:
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Vanishing papers doesn't sound very scientific. Neither does:

Quote:
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Manipulating data to "hide the decline?" Doesn't sound good to me.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
Well, there is that one email that says:

Quote:
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Vanishing papers doesn't sound very scientific.

No, it doesn't sound good. On the other hand, there should be some standards in what papers are referenced. There is no way to tell from the email if the papers are being kept out of the IPCC report (not vanished) because they are lousy, or because they say controversial things.

Quote:
Neither does:

Quote:
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Manipulating data to "hide the decline?" Doesn't sound good to me.

The RealClimate link given above responds to this one:
Quote:
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


See above...

[qupte]The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.[/quote]

I believe this refers to one aberrant dataset, which didn't show warming while the others did. They weren't able to correlate that dataset, so they decided not to use it.

Quote:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.


I'll have to find this one...

Quote:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.


No more than anything any normal human being would feel during a very contentious and hard-fought battle. You call this "evidence" of anything?

Quote:
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….


Again, I'd like to see some more context - what were they trying to do?

Quote:
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”


Discussing the fact that the journal itself seems to be biased. Nothing I find alarming in that.

Quote:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”


Normal practice in the scientific community.

Really, there's nothing "alarming" in this. If it's a nail in any coffin, it's in the coffin of denialism.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A comment at ClimateProgress:

Quote:
The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it’s all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they’ve ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.

_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voltago
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 2587
Location: userland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In other news, scientists confirm that when you're confronted with a problem, shutting your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA in a very loud voice makes that problem go away. Just in case it doesn't work, flinging mud against people that tell you things you don't want to hear usually does the trick. And failing that, just claim that some kind of global conspiracy exists that dreamed up the problem in the first place, and you're home and dry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Voltago wrote:
In other news, scientists confirm that when you're confronted with a problem, shutting your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA in a very loud voice makes that problem go away. Just in case it doesn't work, flinging mud against people that tell you things you don't want to hear usually does the trick. And failing that, just claim that some kind of global conspiracy exists that dreamed up the problem in the first place, and you're home and dry.
What you describe is exactly what the man made global warming proponents have been doing for years.

Thank you.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

old school wrote:
There is no man made climate change.

Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7172
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah sure, it's all a big scientists' plot. Get a life... :roll:
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1117
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup, no global warming at all. It's all a myth.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sts wrote:
old school wrote:
There is no man made climate change.

Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction.
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects.

Taking away the little CO2 humans contribute, the rising levels in the atmosphere are the effect, not cause, of recent warming trends. The Russians proved this from deep ice cores in Antarctica.

For the majority of time of the "Modern Earth," the temperature and CO2 levels have been higher than the current levels. And life flourished as never before. The plants dug it as well as the animals that ate the plants. The oceans teamed with life. One could say that the times we are living in are the aberration.

Now this does not mean we as a species just fling crap all over the place. The less overall impact we have the better.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

old school wrote:
sts wrote:
old school wrote:
There is no man made climate change.

Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction.
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects.

I'm saying we don't know how much human activity affects global climate. You're dismissal of man-made climate change is just as wrong as their little adventure in confirmation bias.

I agree with you on the pollution part, though. Al Gore really f'd up by framing the whole conversation around Global Warming and this "the sky is falling" scenario instead of the more believable and more sensible "we are slowly poisoning ourselves and our environment with pollution" argument. We would probably have also wasted less time and money on "global cooling" engineering solutions that address only temperature change and not pollution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shash
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sts wrote:
old school wrote:
sts wrote:
old school wrote:
There is no man made climate change.

Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction.
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects.

I'm saying we don't know how much human activity affects global climate. You're dismissal of man-made climate change is just as wrong as their little adventure in confirmation bias.

I agree with you on the pollution part, though. Al Gore really f'd up by framing the whole conversation around Global Warming and this "the sky is falling" scenario instead of the more believable and more sensible "we are slowly poisoning ourselves and our environment with pollution" argument. We would probably have also wasted less time and money on "global cooling" engineering solutions that address only temperature change and not pollution.


You mean like geoengineering "solutions"? CCS is viable, and a good option, but seriously, increasing the earth's albedo by pumping more SO2 into the air? That's retarded beyond belief! I'd rather drown than get my skin burned of by acid rain...
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?

Hmmmm, I wonder if they do that about other things *coughevolution*
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1117
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?

Because it would inconvenience them.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1000
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?


You might want to look up the meaning of "Scientifically". Please, for example, explain the growth of the polar ice caps and the cooling we've had since 1998 and make that fit into the "warming" concept. If that can be done, then please explain how all of this is caused by humans and can be fixed by humans. I'd love to see how the human race will stop all volcanic eruptions and plant decay (CO2 levels that make a fleet of SUVs seem like windmills).
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
"It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes." ~ Senator Ted Stevens describing the Internet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?

To generalize, we Americans have a proud history of questioning authority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1117
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Growth of the Polar ice caps?.. According to NASAs own data, the ice caps have shrunk significantly over the last 20 years. There's a full 20% missing from the median ice coverage.

Global warming scepticism; if you can't disprove your irrational beliefs, make shit up, or blame Obama.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cokehabit wrote:
why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?

Hmmmm, I wonder if they do that about other things *coughevolution*

You need to change newspapers. :wink:
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 1 of 22

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum