Did you even read the wikipedia page? No, didnt think so.
I did, hence I was able to quote from it. You see how that works?
Yes, hows about "leaked"?
Prove it.
Unless of course you have access to information that NO one else has or proof positive the emails were stolen then front up with it.
Even if the emails were "leaked", they were still stolen, as they didn't belong to whomever put them online. So, they were stolen, as per the definition of the term.
Naturally Im assuming you have heard of a little something along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty"
That's ironic. It seems none of your denialist chums were willing to offer said courtesy to Jones and Mann et al after the emails were stolen.
...or are we now entering the territory where those who question Mann Made Global Warming (tm) should be guilty until proven innocent?
As long as it applies equally to both sides, I think we're fine.
Who exactly is taking all this dirty money from big oil? Im pretty sure McIntyre isnt pumping his bank account full of black gold...whereas CRU's links to big oil money are pretty well documented.
McIntyre's links are well documented. BP was one of the original sponsors of CRU. I still can't see how this is an argument for your side, though. Even if CRU was fully sponsored today by BP, it wouldn't say anything at all. BP is an oil company, and the work CRU does today goes against oil company profiteering.
There is billions, if not trillions to be made through Mann Made Global Warming (tm), big oil knows this and if you opened your eyes just a little you would be able to see some of the fraud already being carried out because of green energy requirements.
Oh, I see. This is some sort of reverse psychology trolling. Just a hint from me to you, it makes your whole argument look stupid.
BTW, the link you provided...maybe you should read page 10? Although I suspect you will of course ignore the first paragraph
Which link was that? Could you please highlight the point you are trying to make. I don't enjoy debating against someone who only makes vague statements and hints. Spill the beans or get lost.
I had a good read through your link...it is breath taking isnt it?
Truly revolting if you ask me.
But it does beg the question, if the move to "target" climate scientists is so well organised, funded and LARGE...how come there is absolutely no evidence put forward of that apart from "one or two cyber bullies hinting at the level of organisation" going on?
Oh, I see. You didn't look at any of the footnotes, did you?
The tarring also going on in that report is itself breath taking.
Tarring? It's a document about how denialists operate. There's no tarring going on there.
Isnt it interesting though that the report attempts to portray someone like Andrew Bolt as being an agitator...yet has absolutely nothing to say about the activities of George Monboit (remembering he himself admitted that he was out of his depth when it came to debating Mann Made Global Warming (tm)).
There's nothing in the report about Vladimir Putin or Richard Nixon either. It's not relevant to the scope of the article. If you want to argue that George Monbiot has spawned legions of munchkins threatening scientists to death, go ahead. Just be prepared to back it up.
The language used throughout the document is so loaded and biased that it can in no way be considered an unbiased report. Denialists, anti-science, hacking...while mistakes by the IPCC are merely referred to as "alleged".
First, it's not a report. It's a series of articles. Second, of course it's biased. It's biased towards reason and against moonbat crazies like denialists and their antics. Mistakes in the IPCC is handled pretty well in the article, I think. There was one pretty major mistake, that still didn't alter the conclusion of the report, and the rest were figments of denialist imaginations.
BTW, thanks for the link to Bolts website oh and its pretty well know that the ABC is the BBC of Australia when it comes to the belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm)
You mean producing fair and accurate reporting as opposed to politically biased crap reporting like FOX news et al?
Are you sure you never said that? Because when I look back at your posts you very clearly said that most scientists around the world agree with you.
Yes, I did. I didn't say I knew them all, though. Are you having difficulties with the term "know"?
Now, you could only know that if you personally KNEW most scientists around the world, which of course we know you dont
Ok, sit down and let me tell you a story. There's this thing called "media". It takes many different forms, written in books, television, radio, even the internet. It's magical in the way it can transmit ideas from one person to the next without the two ever meeting. Gone are the days of yore were people had to sit face to face to commune. We are living in the future, Billy, and in the future, information is readily accessible.
