The Pope blames humans for global warming. It IS our fault.

454545 wrote:

Gary gettin' to ya, huh? lol

Nope. Just having some fun.

Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Can you provide me with the facts that will allow me to also know this area of science has been corrupted?

You are like a Creationist who, after being presented with dinosaur bones, says, "Those bones have already been debunked. Show me some proof." There's nothing left to say.

You got the Pope in your corner now and that guy knows how to sell religion. Of course you might want to consider the consequences of letting Catholicism complete a hostile take-over of Global Warming. You might not like the new corporate culture.

DiscoGary wrote:

Guy O'Leighken wrote:

Can you provide me with the facts that will allow me to also know this area of science has been corrupted?

You are like a Creationist who, after being presented with dinosaur bones, says, "Those bones have already been debunked. Show me some proof." There's nothing left to say.

You got the Pope in your corner now and that guy knows how to sell religion. Of course you might want to consider the consequences of letting Catholicism complete a hostile take-over of Global Warming. You might not like the new corporate culture.

There's a difference between seeing the bones and the someone telling you they have the bones.

LEONARD SMALLS wrote:

Plano, TX wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33182065

nothing against the Pope, but who cares what he has to say about global warming - or anything else?

I agree. When did what the pope says about anything mean a gosh darned thing in the world?

he hates poverty but he could sell off one ancient goblet, ring, or painting and buy food for Guatemala, but he ain't about to do that.

dingle wrote:

Yeah, what are the bones? You told me they were at Climategate. Then it turned out every credible source said Climategate wasn't a real thing. Then you said no, those sources actually aren't credible. Again, we're talking about the journal Nature. Where can I find these damn bones?!

DiscoGary wrote:

You are like a Creationist who, after being presented with dinosaur bones, says, "Those bones have already been debunked. Show me some proof." There's nothing left to say.

You got the Pope in your corner now and that guy knows how to sell religion. Of course you might want to consider the consequences of letting Catholicism complete a hostile take-over of Global Warming. You might not like the new corporate culture.

There's a difference between seeing the bones and the someone telling you they have the bones.

EZ10Miler wrote:

I agree. When did what the pope says about anything mean a gosh darned thing in the world?

he hates poverty but he could sell off one ancient goblet, ring, or painting and buy food for Guatemala, but he ain't about to do that.

Yeah, what are the bones? You told me they were at Climategate. Then it turned out every credible source said Climategate wasn't a real thing. Then you said no, those sources actually aren't credible. Again, we're talking about the journal Nature. Where can I find these damn bones?!Here let's try to unravel this. The editorial board of Nature says Climategate doesn't suggest that any bad science took place. So where can I find facts that suggest the editorial board of Nature is in on this conspiracy? Thanks in advance.Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6569551&page=7#ixzz3dp4cZFSR

dingle wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

You are like a Creationist who, after being presented with dinosaur bones, says, "Those bones have already been debunked. Show me some proof." There's nothing left to say.

You got the Pope in your corner now and that guy knows how to sell religion. Of course you might want to consider the consequences of letting Catholicism complete a hostile take-over of Global Warming. You might not like the new corporate culture.

There's a difference between seeing the bones and the someone telling you they have the bones.

So to summarize where we are so far:

I said why not trust the consensus of the climate science community, since none of us are experts on climate, and that's what we do in other areas of science. Disco Gary said this one area of science is corrupt, and pointed me to the "Climategate" scandal as evidence.

It turns out that the AP, FactCheck, and the editorial board of the science journal Nature all looked into it, and concluded that there was no evidence of falsified science from "Climategate." So I'd be interested in either: (1) other evidence that climate scientists are corrupt, or (2) evidence that the AP, FactCheck, and the journal Nature are part of a conspiracy to promote a global warming agenda.

Not to confuse the main issue Disco Gary, but I think you might benefit from asking yourself why you starting questioning the motives of climate scientists in the first place. After all, you went through a four year engineering program that requires learning and accepting many equations and approaches without supporting data. Even if you go through all the books' mathematical proofs, they are based on assumptions that came from observation. Obviously you didn't recreate those experiments on your own.

I'd like to propose that you were especially open to the possibility of fraud by climate scientists, because the presence of man-made global warming is hard to reconcile with your views of government as a long time "constitutional conservative." The presence of man-made global warming would mean a large scale, world wide effort would need to be made to combat it, and that's especially hard to accept if you feel the government should be smaller than it is.

Just something to think about. Anyways, please answer my previous comment.