If I remember correctly IPCC is International Panel on Climate Change, and supposedly set up to assess and control the human impact on climate change. I could be totally wrong, of course.The IPCC is and always was a political work-group, created to try to bring about the Ken Lay/Al Gore concept of energy remittances on a global scale.
There is some evidence of a human impact, such as the increased atmospheric CO2 as measured at Hawawii and indeed ice cores from the Antarctic. "To conjure up" is grossly inaccurate.Obviously, they were going to try to conjure up scientific grounds for this.
Less fraud, and more psuedo science.So from the start the AGW argument has been of the vulnerable sort, where you try to figure out support for your predetermined conclusion. When there are actually only 60 scientists rather than the imaginary 4000 actually trying to make this case, the magnitude of this fraud becomes quite relevant.
Climategate being the latest example of how people pretend they've disproven science based on one minor occurance.I'm always happy to do so, but this happens to be the thread about Climategate.
Nah, I do my best to ignore the Daily Mail .If you want to create a thread about the misuse of "science" for political purposes, I'll do my best to contribute bipartisan examples. One of the best I've researched is the fabrication of results on contamination by Depleted Uranium.
Indeed, that does seem rather odd. Especially when that site explains the misinterpretations some of this Climategate are based on.Maybe <you> aren't, but the other posts certainly are. Telling me that I'm ignorant, and that I should go eddicate myself through sole use of the very site these cretins control?
It may not be your claim, but it's certainly one of the many claims that's been floating around since this "came to light".If that <had> been the claim, it would be more palatable.
As an edit -
A great example of this was last week's question time, where the women from the Daily Mail actually said:
-"The ice is not retreating"
-"There is no evidence of global warming"
Both of which are wrong.
I didn't insult you. I said "appear", I did not call you ignorant, and it is not my fault you read sensationalist as a bad thing. Judging by the Daily Mail and some other tabloids, Sensationalist articles are highly profitable.Furthermore, I wouldn't be tweaking you on misspellings if you weren't trying to act like such an arrogant arse (with multiple ad hominem attacks having nothing to do with the issue).
However, you have said I'm trying to act like an arrogant arse, which I'm afraid is an attack on my person and so is being reported as such.
And again.I'm providing links as evidence, you're just providing snooty condescension.