Ancient Greenhouse Emissions and The Data Not The Deniers..it's all overwhelming.
We all know, or should know "The Koch Foundation provided funding to physicist Richard Muller of UC Berkeley, a longtime climate-change skeptic, to disprove the widespread consensus on global warming. Instead, his re-analysis showed the exact same warming trend found by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists."
"Since completing his research last year, Muller has been vociferously speaking out on the reality of human-caused climate change, including in testimony before Congress."
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions
An analysis of Greenland ice core samples indicates significant global methane emissions per capita during the Roman Empire and China's Han Dynasty much greater than had been known.
Study reveals ancient greenhouse gas emissions - latimes.com
The warm-up The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming
The LA Times featured an Op-Ed by IoES Director Glen MacDonald on why it is crucial to continue to pursue scientific data on climate change.
The warm-up The data, not the deniers, are overwhelming,* UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability
Climate-change denial getting harder to defend
But the skeptics keep shifting their arguments, so it is crucial to continue pursuing scientific data on the issue.
Climate-change denial getting harder to defend - latimes.com
what do the deniers hope to accomplish by keeping their charade going?
As long as we are entertained by the moronic pseudoscience that's created just to inflame the "believers" of your cult..
Here we have a fine example of that. What with those "ancient greenhouse gas emissions" links and no discussion of the MEANING or demonstrated understanding of any of that.. (if any)............. How long have you been scientifically abused? As a child?
Don't you want to discuss what a 2% anthropomorphic contribution of methane MEANS to the climate in 200AD?? Or you just want to make a quick political score???
MacScience for the masses.
there is a distinct possibility that public opinion will reach a critical mass of 'deniers' and the current fad will go out of favour. then a large, uninformed and credulous chunk of the public will believe anything presented to them that agrees with the new paradigm. intellectually just as bad but a lot better financially.
