Lies that became Truths

[Scouts Honor]

ozone

cfc's

all went the way of the dodo

even the hockey stick graph lawsuit by the evil dr mann was dismissed

im sure we make a difference. but the climate has shifted many times without and before our help.

you really have an ego to think that you... not even an ant, controls the climate on this large planet.

it's about controlling what we use.

use teslas!! no dont' use teslas!!

lol

USE ELECTRIC!! no not that one!!

and even if we do make all these changes... to put money in someone's pocket..

none of it matters until china and india do something anyway.

or we stop clear cutting rainforests... or this or that... 

wait we did that...

yet we only have 5 years

oh wait, now we only have 5 yrs

ok, so another 5

 

 

 

[jross]

38 minutes ago, red viking said:

Are you on drugs? Man-made global warming has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. This link that you provided doesn't even bring that into question. All it does is indicate that there were some internal disagreements regarding the methods of a particular study and that study didn't attempt to refute the existence of man-made global warming either. 

This is the type of outrageous stuff that the wingers do. They find a specific very small area where there is some disagreement between scientists and then extrapolate that to point out that everything associated with the much bigger picture of the phenomenon must be a big sham. It's unreal how scientifically illiterate some people are. 

Scout stated that climate data is rigged and provided an article as evidence. 

RV reads this and reframes (invents) that Scout stated man-made global warming is not existent.  Scout might believe in man's contribution to global warming but question data integrity.  We should ask for clarity.

Sure, RV is correct about the article with respect to refuting the existence of man-made global warming.  But this may not be Scout's point.  

This is the behavior worth criticism.   What behavior?  Inventing views that someone didn't clearly state, based on one's own bias, and then criticizing it.  If you want someone's views, directly ask for it and get clarity.  And then argue against the idea rather than attack the person.  Scout didn't say anything inflammatory to warrant this hostility.  For good measure, RV labels the article’s claims of data manipulation ‘internal disagreements,’ ignoring allegations of political bias and subpoena non-compliance.  The claims of which I see as rigging...