Science is not debatable; something is either true or not and to determine if that is the case we've got the Scientific Method and peer-reviewed publications which ultimately turn mere hypothesis into Scientific Laws and ultimately (when the science is incredibly strong) into Scientific Theories.
One might dislike whatever scientifically reached conclusion and even debate it with ones peers, yet that doesn't change the validity of the Science one iota.
Your 'the IPCC rejects information contrary to their belief' stems from this deep misunderstanding of how Science works and, above all, where. Your favorite denier blogs dismissing peer-reviewed papers by respectable climate scientists might be music to your ears, in the Real World it is however not science. Equally, no matter how thrilled you get by deniers writing IPCC dismissing blogposts and non-peer reviewed papers, in the Real World of Real Science those posts and papers are largely scientifically irrelevant.
Edit:
<
Try debating Gravity. You can debate all you want, it wont change the Science of Gravity one bit.
<< That goes right along with the scientific arrogance of Government funded science.>>
Again, you portray a deep lack of understanding of Science. It doesn't matter who funds it as Science has its very own control-mechanisms and outcomes of scientific studies are not predetermined to please a particular donor. If that were the case, literally thousands of government funded research would by now already have been debunked scientifically. They haven't. Not in government funded cancer research, not in government funded particle physics and not in government funded climate research, to name just a few government funded scientific fields where Science has made great progress over the past few decades.
<
I believe in Science, not in Governments. But unlike you, I do know how Science works and I can therefor dismiss the ridiculous, conspiracy minded idea that government funded science is somehow not real science. It was government funded science which got us to the moon and way beyond our solar system, it was government funded science which taught us about the dangers of smoking, it was and still is government funded science which keeps nasty diseases from spreading. Is that all bogus Science too?
<
I 'love' how you guys bring up Hitler in every single ridiculous conspiracy theory, utterly unaware it seems that Hitler fooled his own people in believing the Jews were about to take over their country, their way of life, their money. Sound familiar?
again.. there is not much point in debating the flat earth either.
If you can actually do your own science and prove there is no AGW, lets see it. I guess if all else fails, try conspiracy theories. Maybe there was no moon landings either, after all who can trust the "government"
I had exactly the same reaction as Chem Flunky. It's not at all clear what you're asking, but you did provide some interesting links.
Frankly, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.
Just because the questions aren't in lock-step with your viewpoint doesn't mean that they're biased. They seem like reasonable questions to me. Thanks for pointing them out to me...
How about these questions from those who block those who would post real answers?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Cyclops
You are now unblocked.
Two of the ultra extreme warmunists blocked me, now one of them wants to know why they cant answer my questions?
Only if they tell you it is. If you us identical tactics, somehow its unethical. Basically it amounts to over inflated egos.
"Someone! Please prove me wrong"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131017081516AAsEcW9
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131017033324AA5c97n
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131016163154AAiQ7et
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131015170505AAL7VWn
It seems that the IP CC does the same thing when it comes to a debate on this issue by rejecting information that is contrary to their belief on AGW. Is this why Governments aren't to be trusted when it comes to transparency?
