Environment commissioner expected to slam Tories
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
They were all qualified in the field. I don't know if that means they are "climatologists", but they were are all prevalent climate science researchers. Considering climate science is climatology, it would be reasonable to assume that they were.
Anything else Columbo?
There are no regulations governing emissions from the oil sands. Canada promised the EU about a year ago that it would introduce these by the end of the year but it has not done so.
It was a tongoe in cheek promise to appease Europe and stem the rising European criticism. But the Harper government has no intention of putting anything with measurable significance on the Sands.
That makes me and my weather rock a "climate scientist". Your link said so.
See also
Several European nations have met their Kyoto commitments and a few have surpasses them: notably Britain and Germany. There was no reason that any of the major developed countries could not have done so other than the corporate agenda that governs them.
How can you regulate emissions from sand?
Or are you suggesting that there are no regulations governing emissions from industrial diesel engines and from upgrader facilities?
1934 was the warmest only in North America, and not all of North America until it was passed by four of the last dozen or so years. That means for about 5% of the world's landmass. There were easily understood reasons for that and it is of no significance in the march of climate change.
Every single one of the 97% was a climate scientist. It was a count of all published, peer reviewed papers published on global climate change. Only climate scientists do that. Of the remaining 3%, there is not one paper that has not been refuted and a couple were so bad and should not have been published that it is accurate to say that100% of peer reviewed papers by climate scientists that have not been refuted or discredited support the consensus on climate change.
Every single one of the 97% was a climate scientist. It was a count of all published, peer reviewed papers published on global climate change. Only climate scientists do that. Of the remaining 3%, there is not one paper that has not been refuted and a couple were so bad and should not have been published that it is accurate to say that100% of peer reviewed papers by climate scientists that have not been refuted or discredited support the consensus on climate change.
What will they bitch about when mining is replaced by SAGD to extract the other 80%+ of oil in the deposit?
What was the caustion for 1934?
What is this supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that AGW is an hypothesis and that there is no cause and effect relationship with CO2 emissions?
Could you expand on that so that I can respond to your real concern. Are you saying, perhaps, that a doubling of CO2 will not, by itself, increase temperatures by 1C as the laws of physics say it will? Are you saying that the water vapour, for one, is "hypothetical."
You don't know about the "feedbacks"? If not why do you bother debating something you are oblivious to?
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.
I find FAIR to a useful source of multiple versions of the same story, or finding out how stories change over time. They will analyze the different versions of the stories and use logic to argue their points. So yes they can be a useful source of information. No source is 100% objective... but FAIR reports do provoke critical thought.
EAO, don't bother.
Once the eugenicists take over, cap'n morgan will be the first to go into the flames.
Once the eugenicists take over, cap'n morgan will be the first to go into the flames.
I know about the feedbacks, petros. I have asked you what you ar implying so that I can respond to you. Since you think they are hypotheticl it is not clear what your understanding is.