Why are we concealing data about Global warming

Schroeder · 07-09-08, 04:40 AM

But if it is a fact that mankind has nothing to do with it, why does the Bush administration conceal/manipulate data? They always said that mankind isn't responsible for this, so if they conceal/change data then this data must have shown the opposite.
And if it really does, then concealing or even faking it would mean to send mankind to hell just for making a few more bucks with oil.

I always wondered why the "anti global warming" guys have to rely on shady characters and mafia methods so often if the entire case is so perfectly clear as they always claim.:hmm:

Don't get me wrong, I don't know whether global warming is caused by us or not.
But if I can choose to belief from scientists who are focusing on the theme or scientists/politicians/lobbyists who have either different sectors of research than climate models or are involved in the oil/automobile/coal industry, bribing scientists to get the results they want, concealing data they don't like, then I would choose the climate experts.
The other guys are just too mafia-like to have any credibility. If a case is clear, I don't need to conceal/fake data. I don't need to bribe scientists to make them not mentioning the word “global warming” in there reports, I don't need to rely on nutrition researchers for making statements against global warming.
This all makes it pretty much impossible to belief these guys.

07-09-08, 04:40 AM	#7
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	But if it is a fact that mankind has nothing to do with it, why does the Bush administration conceal/manipulate data? They always said that mankind isn't responsible for this, so if they conceal/change data then this data must have shown the opposite. And if it really does, then concealing or even faking it would mean to send mankind to hell just for making a few more bucks with oil. I always wondered why the "anti global warming" guys have to rely on shady characters and mafia methods so often if the entire case is so perfectly clear as they always claim.:hmm: Don't get me wrong, I don't know whether global warming is caused by us or not. But if I can choose to belief from scientists who are focusing on the theme or scientists/politicians/lobbyists who have either different sectors of research than climate models or are involved in the oil/automobile/coal industry, bribing scientists to get the results they want, concealing data they don't like, then I would choose the climate experts. The other guys are just too mafia-like to have any credibility. If a case is clear, I don't need to conceal/fake data. I don't need to bribe scientists to make them not mentioning the word “global warming” in there reports, I don't need to rely on nutrition researchers for making statements against global warming. This all makes it pretty much impossible to belief these guys.