Search results

carbon trading and carbon tax aren't even the same thing...how does BP own the carbon trading market?

Scientists continue to collect a salary at whatever university or institution they work at, regardless of whether or not society even addresses the risks they identify...in fact as the issue persists, the opportunity to apply for grant money on this subject is also lengthened. Once the issue is...

Tinfoil hat nothing...the rocks and minerals of earth have recorded what can happen when temperature changes by only a few degrees. A few degrees in the other direction and most of the Northern hemisphere is blanketed with ice sheets...a few degrees matters. It matters for all of the strained...

On the contrary. This thread was started by Avro to showcase one aspect, and he's pretty good at posting the latest material from the deniers. The standard stuff is not new, there's always someone who will come along and say something like "Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the...

That is exactly what you were trying to do. You thought that those observations were inconsistent with my view, and that I should call them crap. Well I don't. It was implicit in what you said, you think that a few years where temperature is not going up invalidates a theory. Well it doesn't...

And the sea water as well. Commie bastards.

That is exactly what you did. You want us to consider recent temperatures, which some deniers have pointed out is cooling, depending on when your time series begins. In other words it's not a robust finding. That is the definition of cherry picking. Well you should think harder. All the modern...

Another good video from greenman.

More fire breathing madness! :lol:

It's not a bother at all to debunk his nonsense. I'm an eternal optimist though. Maybe one day they'll remove the blinders.

Ahh, so I'm full of crap for using what you say is a crappy record (with nothing but baseless assertions no less,) that must mean the $hit is oozing out every one of your orifices if you're cherry picking from data sets that you say are illegitimate. That's standard denier tactics though. Use...

Then that is called cherry picking. There's an entire record to use, and it also has ups and downs. Climate change like that humans are imposing now doesn't mean monotonic increases in global temperature every year...anyone who uses this argument is indeed full of crap.

No it isn't. Observations aren't opinions. It is warming. Define legitimate science. All you've done is throw out assertions as truth, unfounded assertions. That's not what I would call factual.

A new paper out this week on one of Petros' favourite tiny radiative forcings...contrails. The error they quantified when correcting model bias was very large, 25%!!! The climate model they looked at was underestimating the optical depth over America by 25% when compared against satellite values.

Yup, just like that reporter...

The sorry state of science reporting is leading those people into the chasm...

Our cooling world... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp Interactive graphics here: Restless Ice - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Our cooling world... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/14ice.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp Interactive graphics here: Restless Ice - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

It doesn't have to. If you're not selling food products through interstate commerce then you're not covered by the text of the bill.

So, is this figure similarly dubious in support? Going to the FAO, this publication gives a figure of 40% of global workers in agriculture are waged workers. How can 95% of farmers be subsistence farmers, if 450 million of the 1.3 Billion agricultural workers get paid a wage...