Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.
When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"
Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.
ROFL! Yeah, right.
I haven't seen any evidence the Soon lied about conflicts of interest.Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.
ROFL! Yeah, right.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that Mann, Hansen, Romm or pretty much anyone else in climate science has lied about conflicts of interest as Soon did. Despite my taunts on the matter, we haven't had a shred. NOT ONE FUCKING SHRED.
Yep, someone is paying them thar glaciers and ice caps millions of dollars to melt.
When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"
Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.
You've been given the links repeatedly. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't looked.
What I don't see is where Romm lied about any conflicts of interest. Last time I checked, it's not against the law to earn money.
When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"
Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.
Science is still not done by consensus, you're describing cult behavior.
Also, if the "science" is settled why are we still funding your "research".
The data is apparently irrelevant to your models. You could feed in the weekly attendance at Santa Anna racetrack to your model and still show global....what are you calling it today, is it climate change or global warming or something else
You've been given the links repeatedly. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't looked.
Just like you haven't looked at Mann, Hansen and Company..
Mann, Hansen, among others failed to report their activist ties when putting papers up for journal review.... Funny Soon did the same thing they did, However Soon was being paid by Harvard who accepted the money and then paid Soon.. Mann and Hanson have done the same... Now why is Soon treated differently along with many other scientist who's only "crime" seems to be they disagree with the mob?
Romm takes the money flat out and fails to report his ties to enviro wacko groups.. That one is so blatant that it is criminal..
I'm still waiting on the experiment that shows that CO2 added in an experiment causes an increase in temperatures. hasn't gotten me anywhere and you feel like you're deserved of something? LOL FAILRomm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.
ROFL! Yeah, right.
I'm still waiting for the evidence that Mann, Hansen, Romm or pretty much anyone else in climate science has lied about conflicts of interest as Soon did. Despite my taunts on the matter, we haven't had a shred. NOT ONE FUCKING SHRED.
Mann, Hansen, among others failed to report their activist ties when putting papers up for journal review.... Funny Soon did the same thing they did, However Soon was being paid by Harvard who accepted the money and then paid Soon.. Mann and Hanson have done the same... Now why is Soon treated differently along with many other scientist who's only "crime" seems to be they disagree with the mob?
Romm takes the money flat out and fails to report his ties to enviro wacko groups.. That one is so blatant that it is criminal..
Evidence please.
Because I ask you for evidence? This thread has seen dozens of slanderous accusation placed again Hansen, Mann and Romm and not one shred of evidence. And since the subject of this thread is not Mann or Hansen or Romm and not even the topic of corrupt science in general, all these accusations are simply desperate attempts to draw our attention from the actual topic here: the demonstrable falsehoods committed by Dr Wei Hock Soon when he signed documents - on multiple occasions - swearing no conflict of interests existed regarding work to be published when he knew full well that such conflicts existed in spades.
Given the the stated topic of this thread was to ask if anyone had any evidence to suggest he did NOT make these false statements and that he did NOT hide real conflicts of interest and that he did NOT produce "results" as "deliverables" to his grant payors - the fact that the opposition has done nothing here but unsuccessfully attempt to besmirch the names of others tells us all that the answer to the topic query is "NO".
Just a basic lesson in logic here for the deniers: none of your charges against Mann, Hansen and Romm would have had the SLIGHTEST bearing on the guilt or innocence of Dr Wei Hock Soon but clearly made the case that you assumed the former - that Willie Soon was guilty - right out of the gates.