Classic, money means its a conspiracy, and a big one. Not only would they have to fake multiple sets of raw data, they would also have have a more or less global consensus on this.
I do know professors that are well read in the field (environmental engineering and water resources) and they will admit that many professors take it too far, but there is an obvious problem. This is also coming from a very cynical yet principled person who would never fake studies for money or grants. Also, basically can never get fired unless he sleeps with a student or does something on that level.
Also Classic, for your second link, its pure crap. Temperatures showed a 20 year period where there was no warming when we were also spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which is possible because there are multiple factors that go into climate change.
If you've ever read the IPCC reports, they are all based on probability. So expecting something to happen for certain is misinterpreting the reports.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jinx
Damage control. Pretty weak at that.
|
Yes, because raw data is obviously weak...