Why do people deny evolution?

What it means is that ONE scientific journal does not meet your unjustified view of whst theyshould publish, from which you without evidence generalize to ALL scientific journals and all scientific research. That is illogical overgeneralization.

I'm not going to pay any attention to your bogus global warming data. No one else with any sense is going to pay attention to your bogus global warming data either.

If you ever find a source that uses reliable data, get back to me and I'll take a look at what they have to say.

You cannot provide any examples of anything untrue that these scientists have said.

You also cannot provide any examples of anything untrue that I've said.

It's easy to do but I don't care enough for them paid-for liars. Some peer reviewed journals are honest enough to reject their crap -- tough luck! They can always publish it on FAUX or RT.

Wrong. You cannot point out anything that they've said that is untrue.

You are just falsely accusing them of lying because you want to hide the truth.



Not only can you not provide any examples of anything untrue that they've said, you also cannot demonstrate that they have taken any nefarious payments.



Rejecting good science because you want to hide the data is not honest in any way.



Tough luck for your efforts to convince people to pay attention to this global warming hysteria. You don't fool anyone.

Gee, that's pretty much everything that's been put out. Try NASA, NOAA, HADCRUT, the National Climste Assessent Report, the IPCC's TAR, FAR, AND Summaries for Policymakers which should ve in your comprehension range. they're not journal based, so none of your cavils should apply.

All this science is ultimately based on the bogus data that these journals have corrupted.

So, no sale. I'm not interested in your phony science.

Not true. Yoo have completely failed in yourattempt to characterize the data as bogus, nYou have introduced no proof that it is, and the scientists who produce the data stand behind their work. Go t RealClimate.org. that is the scientists speaking directly, no journal interference, and they've spent years debunking denialist arguments. The USDA produces growth zone data, telling farmers and agribusinesses what crops they shuld grow based on the climate where they are. Billions of dollars are invested, depending on their assessments. Several years ago they moved every zone one step northward based on climate change since their last reassessment in the 1960s. The fact is the hysteria is comiYou really haven't a valid leg to stand on.ng from the denialists. And even the researchers you cite say the climate change is real and is happening, they just dispute the pace of it.

As you may have noticed, the world is ignoring you and your sides phony hysteria. The world gets it data direct frm the scientists who researched it.

About 85% of the world population takes global warming seriously. You're only fooling 15% of folks.

World Gallup Poll, Mar 2017 :

- How much do you personally worry about Global Warming or Climate Change ? Great deal 45%; Fair amount 21%; Only a little 18%; Not at all 16%; No opinion 0%

- Which of the following statements reflects your view of when the effects of global warming will begin to happen? Already begun 62%; Within a few years 4%; Within your lifetime 7%; Not within lifetime, but affect future 16%; Will never happen 9%; No opinion 3%

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/206036/climate-change-trends.aspx

Pointing out facts is hardly an attempt to fool anyone.

Global warming hysterics can waste their own resources if they want, but don't expect the US to join this folly.

That is incorrect. I have established that global warming hysteria is based on bogus data.

My side is not engaging in any hysteria.

It is your side's hysteria that my side is ignoring.

No it's not. You have stablished no such thing. You have wrongly called into question one journal on one disputed aticle. You have not established any overall pattern of deception, which does not exist. And as Olivier pointed out the world in general does not believe you for good reason.

Nonsense,and the world isn't buying it.

That is incorrect. They've been busted suppressing data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.



Their views don't matter to me.

You cannot show any examples of hysteria from my side. We're not the ones who are pretending that the world is ending.



I don't care what they think.

Your cascades snomelt article has been a reported data based on stat anlysis just to 2007. The AGU (not a shoddy group , look em up) published Snow Water Equivalent data from 1930 till 2018 for the severl nopack data points in the CAscades and the SWE has been reported to have decreased by a measurable amount in that 70 year period.

tHW WORLD ISN'T ENDING, BUY IT IS CHANGING. gONNA BE A PARADISE FOR COCKROACHES, WHO CAN SURVIVE ANYTHING. yOU EVER SEENA Mexican COCKROACH? sCARY. damn capslock.

Most of those conclusions about the Sierras have been developed on data that had quit being used in 2007, whyzat?? Id say that the SWE methods were a bit robuster .

Youve tried to make a point based on one basic data point that are
1out of date
2may not even be valid