I suppose that Allen would have then removed any/all references from UN-based 'facts' that were gleaned from East Anglia University?
... Yeah, I doubt it too
Reddit bans comments from global warming skeptics
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
I suppose that Allen would have then removed any/all references from UN-based 'facts' that were gleaned from East Anglia University?
... Yeah, I doubt it too
How about this "climate scientist"
Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations
They do not like to be debated or challenged.
That is why you only hear them on NPR but not on conservative talk radio.
Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations
They do not like to be debated or challenged.
That is why you only hear them on NPR but not on conservative talk radio.
What is a climate scientist?
Sure they are tools. So is a pair of pliers. Mr Goodpliers can predict and complete an oil change by logical reasoning and a pair of pliers too but would you trust him with your jet engine?
A scam artist.
Please read...
Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations
Like a Climatologist? How many Climatologists are climate scientists and how many climate scientists are Climatologists?
A climatologist. How many Climate Scientists are Climatologists?
My dentist is a scientist. If he did a paper linking global warming to less and less people complaining of nerve pain from cold air over a 30 year span does it make him a climate scientist with proof of warming trends?
My dentist is a scientist. If he did a paper linking global warming to less and less people complaining of nerve pain from cold air over a 30 year span does it make him a climate scientist with proof of warming trends?
Last edited:
No, that wouldn't make him a climate scientist. A climate scientist knows more than the average bear about climate.
It's multi-disciplinary. So, for instance, I probably know more radiation physics than most climatologists. You'd need a hydrologist to speak to the potential impacts on surface waters.
There's no proof oin the natural sciences. Proof is a logical abstraction.
That doesn't make them climate scientists. They are Astrophysicists, hydrologists and climatologists.
Scientists that inform the issue then. Semantics. Call them whatever you like, but the excess CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are still going to re-radiate infrared energy back to teh surface of teh earth.
And supports wealth distribution?
Like John C. Beale... the EPAs top Climate Expert...
Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations
As I have said before... there is so much money to be made in Climate Change.
Hedgehog.
Who knows for sure? Overwhelming evidence is that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly due to human oxidation of hydrocarbons, given that the math works out to the right order of magnitude and given that there does not appear a similar event in geological hisotry where concentrations have increased this quickly.
it appears you aren't looking because there are 6 interglacial periods to easily compare to. Crack on it.
Don't play dumb. Tell us what you don't like about it.
No, if something misses the mark it wasn't accurate. In science we have objective tests for that, so you'll have to do better than some inarticulate blanket statement that simply lumps all models together. Heck that means your model is crap too, though you seem supremely confident in it ironically.
Carbon cycle. Heard of it? If you have then the answer to your question should be obvious.
Absolute unmitigated bull****.
In 2007, that moron Al Gore said there would be no ice at the North Pole in 5 years.
Last week in snowed....in Cairo. I guess the Pole moved south huh?/
There has been NO increase in mean temperature on earth since at least the year 2000.
"Global warming" has been the greatest con foisted on a gullible population in 100 years.
And the very fact that the supporters of global warming will brook no counter argument disproves their claim to be "scientific" in their conclusions. Science ALWAYS tolerates a challenge.
They are all con artists, led by the greatest con of all, Al Gore.
It is only a matter of degree.