(January 2, 2014 at 6:17 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(January 2, 2014 at 6:03 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: uhm, ok. Because you said with climategate you couldn't trust IPCC, so I looked that up, that was an accusation that they covered up evidence.Well the, evolution debate has been effected a great deal by the media, and if it wasn't for the abilities of one Thomas Huxley in debate it could've been affected a good deal more. Now the way it is affecting the actual scientific work is like this. Until recently many scientists were afraid to publish work that could be interpreted as evidence against global warming, because as the climategate emails showed, it could turn colleagues against them and have them equivocated to holocaust deniers by the public. That has only begun to change.
Yea, it's abundantly clear that in the US people like to lie about climate change just like they do about evolution. It's no use implying science isn't science because you're not sure what is going on. So I think you should look it up. For you both scenarios are equally possible, so why should it be a problem that there are some of us who have made up our minds and say global warming is real?
Again with this exceptionalism when it comes to global warming. The media has never affected evolutionary science, has it? I don't understand the double standard, it just looks like conspiracy theorists' methods.
You see, you said you weren't accusing them of covering up evidence, but now here you are. That's exactly what the creationists say about evolution! They say they get persecuted for publishing it, even the guy who advocates the stork theory of reproduction says the same thing.