Search results

According to the posted definition and outline of what an alleged climate scientist is they don't work in any scientific field or collect data at all. You are still contradicting yourself. Like you'd said before of knowing what you don't know. This is one of those times to rest on those...

If they are meterologists, what do you think they do for a living? Lay carpet? Piss around with models all day dreaming up "scenarios"?

Cool chart that gives a 52% consensus of 100% AGW just like I said. Go f-cking figure. Where does the 97% come from?

Do you know what an alleged "climate scientist" is and does? I posted it above. Did you read it? You are in the same boat you were in with the bible college. Rowing in circles like a one armed man.

Your don't remember the 50 some percent consensus of meteorologists? If climatologists and meteorologists total 70.5% who makes up the portion that pushes it to 97%¿ More sh-t math like where positive exponential inputs lead to negatives. Tantrum? Have you ever seen on of those deprogrammers at...

Already been posted. Several times and I'm not posting them again. You can get the f-ck off you lazy fat *** and look this sh-t up for your own goddam self.

97% of mythical "climate scientists" agree yet consensus is nowhere close to that in the real earth sciences which is where climatologists meteorologists hydrologists geologists etc are grouped. There are no climate scientists in the earth sciences world. You can't make it exist by wishing it...

Did you see the episode of Flintstones where Fred and Barney started the last one from the smoke that comes off their feet from braking.

Right and those people do not call theselve's "climate scientists". Noooooo they are earth scietistists and as for the math question you know the answer but are merely afraid of the shame. Anyone with the slightest of brain knows exponential increases never lead to negatives.

Mean while reality awaits the brainwashed.

You don't have to be a forum idiot if you don't want to be. They don't spend time studying climate, collecting data, or making forecasts. It's pure 100% data crunching to create scenarios. It's like calling Poli sci a real science.

What facts? Nope. We are in an ice age. The polar and alpine ice indicts without doubt we are in an ice age.

In other words you know you're f-cked if you do answer. Good job.

Climate Science Program: Iowa State University Whuditis

What am I ignoring? Q.What types of phenomena do climate scientists study, and how do you go about studying those phenomena? A. * Climate scientists study long-term trends in average meteorological conditions and changes in these averaged conditions from season to season, year to year, decade...

Climatology is Climatology it's not the same as Climate Science. Climate science is a clique.

Zealot.

Can you make pancakes from scratch?

What did I say about sidetracking? The problem is very simple mathematics required for calculating exponential CO2 increases and heat retention which is the flagship of the moron floatilla.

Both are a great place to invest UNDEP money. I'd like to know where my $140 a year is going. I know it's not going to unicorn ranches in Botswana but to resource rich nations like Botswana. Resources that are luxuries in our world. What's is my ROI on Botswanan REE, diamond and gold mines?