"The biggest scandal in modern science"

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Ignore? No. Debunk it as a load of crap? Yes.

If you're not going to ignore it, when are you going to address it? Also, how are you able to "Debunk it as a load of crap," when the e-mails have been confirmed to be official? It seems to me that you are having a difficult time excepting an inconvenient truth. Am I correct, Drake?

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Did you fail Earth Science?

No.

[Dark Angel]

carbon emissions, pollution and the like aren't the only things causing global warming, some of you should try studying astrophysics and cosmology and discovering some information there also. The planet is shifting its magnetic fields and causing all these changes to the climate along with what we are doing down here to trash the place.

And btw my comment has nothing to do with the 2012 movie, I was studying the above sciences long before that movie came out.

[redqueenar]

Is anyone going to address the OP (original post), or is everyone just going to simply ignore it?

I did, actually with the metaphor about volcanoes. And, to repeat myself. To ignore DECADES of work conducted by THOUSANDS of people for the mistakes of a handful is a misguided mistake and a total distortation of the greater, very serious and GENUINE problem. You are choosing to believe something, regardless of the facts.

[redqueenar]

carbon emissions, pollution and the like aren't the only things causing global warming, some of you should try studying astrophysics and cosmology and discovering some information there also. The planet is shifting its magnetic fields and causing all these changes to the climate along with what we are doing down here to trash the place.

And btw my comment has nothing to do with the 2012 movie, I was studying the above sciences long before that movie came out.

YES! Thank you! BIG PICTURE!

[redqueenar]

.Oxygen is a chemical, yes? Hydrogen is a chemical, yes? Helium is a chemical, yes? Thank you

Hydrogen is an element. Oxygen is a compound of two elements. Not the same.

None of what you're saying is based on your own knowledge, otherwise you would actually know what you're talking about on this very basic level. You're spouting something you read and want to believe. That's HARDLY concrete knowledge. Drake and I have a least demonstrated we paid attention in high school science. HOW DARE YOU preach to us when you have no idea what you're talking about!

[Trailbreaker]

carbon emissions, pollution and the like aren't the only things causing global warming, some of you should try studying astrophysics and cosmology and discovering some information there also. The planet is shifting its magnetic fields and causing all these changes to the climate along with what we are doing down here to trash the place.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be environmentally conscious. Regardless whether global warming is connected with human produced carbon emissions or not, why take any chances? Besides, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is very unattractive anyways. Has anybody ever considered the health issues with carbon emissions?

[Swift]

Hydrogen is an element. Oxygen is a compound of two elements. Not the same.

None of what you're saying is based on your own knowledge, otherwise you would actually know what you're talking about on this very basic level. You're spouting something you read and want to believe. That's HARDLY concrete knowledge. Drake and I have a least demonstrated we paid attention in high school science. HOW DARE YOU preach to us when you have no idea what you're talking about!

BURN! I'm in friggen' grade 10 and know this! Stupid kid.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Hydrogen is an element. Oxygen is a compound of two elements. Not the same.

None of what you're saying is based on your own knowledge, otherwise you would actually know what you're talking about on this very basic level. You're spouting something you read and want to believe. That's HARDLY concrete knowledge. Drake and I have a least demonstrated we paid attention in high school science. HOW DARE YOU preach to us when you have no idea what you're talking about!

Wow, you nitpick at so many irrelevant things. I was using layman's terms.

This whole argument over the use of the word "chemicals," is excessive. I used it when describing the fact that each planet has a different atmosphere. Move on.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be environmentally conscious. Regardless whether global warming is connected with human produced carbon emissions or not, why take any chances? Besides, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is very unattractive anyways. Has anybody ever considered the health issues with carbon emissions?

In a sense, I agree. We should take care of mother Earth, which many of us are. I never said we shouldn't. However, that is far different from being skeptical to the "man-made global warming" theory.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Hydrogen is an element. Oxygen is a compound of two elements. Not the same.

Wait. I didn't catch this the first time I read your post, but I want to make sure I'm correct in what I'm reading. You're claiming Oxygen is a compound, correct?

[Swift]

Nice thread this is.

[Drake]

Wow, you nitpick at so many irrelevant things. I was using layman's terms.

This whole argument over the use of the word "chemicals," is excessive. I used it when describing the fact that each planet has a different atmosphere. Move on.

Layman's terms? No, where I come from, we call it WRONG. You want my sources aside from the IPCC Feb 2007 report, NASA claims, and the UN report? Sure, I'll even play along with your paranoia that the UN is out to getcha. Is NASA also a gang of thugs? IPCC?

Where are YOUR sources? Polar bear population increase? Show me some proof of that. In fact, show me proof of ANYTHING you've said so far.

In a way, you are KIND of right, but ultimately VERY wrong...

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

So yes, you could say that ONE population out of 19 are in fact increasing. But when you say polar bears in general are increasing? That's a LIE.

Why in the hell would anyone take seriously a person who thinks that basic elements are chemicals? Laymans terms? Give me a break. You don't know anything about what you are talking about, and you just got busted for it. Maybe there's too many oxygen chemicals in the air. Or hydrogen chemicals. Maybe even too much potassium chemicals?

Where are your sources?

[Drake]

Wait. I didn't catch this the first time I read your post, but I want to make sure I'm correct in what I'm reading. You're claiming Oxygen is a compound, correct?

In its oxidized state, it is. It forms compounds with nearly any element.

[Trailbreaker]

Wait. I didn't catch this the first time I read your post, but I want to make sure I'm correct in what I'm reading. You're claiming Oxygen is a compound, correct?

Oxygen is an element, but in its purest form it exists as a diatomic gas, O2. So technically you could call O2 a molecule.

I took Chemistry last year so I know that's right.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Layman's terms? No, where I come from, we call it WRONG. You want my sources aside from the IPCC Feb 2007 report, NASA claims, and the UN report? Sure, I'll even play along with your paranoia that the UN is out to getcha. Is NASA also a gang of thugs? IPCC?

Yes.

Where are YOUR sources? Polar bear population increase? Show me some proof of that. In fact, show me proof of ANYTHING you've said so far.

I've included many links to sources in my posts. Read them.

In a way, you are KIND of right, but ultimately VERY wrong...

At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

Those "scientists" had preconceived notions. According to Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with the government of Nunavut, "Polar bears are not going extinct" and do not even "appear to be affected."

So yes, you could say that ONE population out of 19 are in fact increasing. But when you say polar bears in general are increasing? That's a LIE.

Why in the hell would anyone take seriously a person who thinks that basic elements are chemicals? Laymans terms? Give me a break. You don't know anything about what you are talking about, and you just got busted for it. Maybe there's too many oxygen chemicals in the air. Or hydrogen chemicals. Maybe even too much potassium chemicals?

Oh my goodness, move on Drake! Oxygen, Helium, and Hydrogen are all chemical elements. Key word "chemical." It's not a matter of my overall knowledge, it's a matter of you focusing on a minuscule phrase, as to ignore the large factor. The fact that leading "scientists" have been lying through their teeth to the general public!

Where are your sources?

As I've said previously in this post, I've included many links to sources in my posts. Read them.

...

[littleman794]

^WIN, you do

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Oxygen is an element, but in its purest form it exists as a diatomic gas, O2. So technically you could call O2 a molecule.

I took Chemistry last year so I know that's right.

Thank you.

[ALLHAILMEGATRON]

Nice thread this is.

It certainly is. Unfortunately, some members of the forum are getting unnecessarily angry at facts that they disagree with, resorting to "personal attacks." If my memory serves me correctly, I've refrained from personally insulting any of the forums members in this discussion, yes?

[MrX]

[QUOTE=ALLHAILMEGATRON;115322]It certainly is. Unfortunately, some members of the forum are getting unnecessarily angry at facts that they disagree with, resorting to "personal attacks." QUOTE]

Yeah, Thats why I only commented once on this thread. I took one look and right away I knew things were going to get Ugly. I'm all for a good debate, but this is getting out of hand.

[Drake]

It certainly is. Unfortunately, some members of the forum are getting unnecessarily angry at facts that they disagree with, resorting to "personal attacks." If my memory serves me correctly, I've refrained from personally insulting any of the forums members in this discussion, yes?

I'm not angry. But you aren't backing anything up with facts and making dangerous assertions.

[Dark Angel]

So is everyone going to play nice nice now?

[Trailbreaker]

So is everyone going to play nice nice now?

No, nobody can play nice when it comes to these kind of debates.

[redqueenar]

Wow, you nitpick at so many irrelevant things. I was using layman's terms.

This whole argument over the use of the word "chemicals," is excessive. I used it when describing the fact that each planet has a different atmosphere. Move on.

Incorrect information is not layman's terms.

[redqueenar]

Bringing this discussion back to my original point. The OP is based on a logical fallacy, NOT facts. You cannot dismiss an entire argument because part of the argument is wrong.

A few climate scientists being wrong does mean ALL climate scientists are wrong.

A few black people comitting crimes does not mean all black people commit crimes.

All pigeons are doves but not all doves are pigeons.