There are a lot of people that deny the warming data,
but as that's become more and more accepted and accurate they move on to how much is human activity.
After that becomes more reasearched and understood they'll move on to something else.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 10:42, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

Really?
Genuinely? admittedly I try not to converse with retards, but I wasn't aware of anyone who thought that thermometers had somehow become inaccurate over the last 200 years.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 10:55, Reply)

There was a lot of people banging on about Al Gore lying about the hockey stick graph on that film of his.
And people jumped on the UEA scandle. Not serious scientists but not just nutjobs on youtube. Politicians, pundits, that sort of thing.
(PsychoChomp, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 10:59, Reply)

And rightly so.
Not the conclusions the pundits drew, I mean, but people who behave like the UEA lot don't really help science's cause.

In any case, I struggle to regard a fair few climate change "scientists" as really scientists at all
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 11:07, Reply)

Top of the comments:
"While accepting that global warming exists I question the actual data. For instance how accurate was the equipment 200 years ago compared with today ? Have the same global 4000-odd sites been monitored continuously or have new sites been included possibly skewing trends?"

You may belm at this correspondent now.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 10:59, Reply)

Honestly, I'm amazed someone that stupid can use a keyboard.
It's actually quite sad that even at my age I still stand open-mouthed in wonder at the fucking stupidity of the human race.

Then again, Big Brother. So maybe when we hit the bottom of the barrel we were still accelerating?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 21 Oct 2011, 11:05, Reply)