National Academy of Sciences: A bunch of fakes!!!

[Old Rocks]

PV Solar Growth

Data up to and including 2011 is from Solarbuzz. The data for 2012 and 2013 is from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) as of May, 2014. The forecast for 2014 is by the author.

The five year growth rate from 2008 (5.5 GW) to 2013 (39.6 GW) was approximately 50% per year! However, the growth rate from 2009 (7.2 GW) to 2010 (19.6 GW) was a whopping 172%. The growth rate for 2011 was a more modest 40%, but still very good for an entire industry. The reason for the growth rate of only 9% in 2012 was due to major reductions of incentives in several European countries, namely Italy and Germany. The estimate of growth for 2013, finalized in May, 2014 by the EPIA, was 32% - not bad. The 2013 growth was due mainly to increases in China, Japan and the US.

Solar Markets Around The World

An average growth rate of 50% per annum from 2008 to 2013. And you want to call that failure? Talk about being out of touch with reality.

 

[orogenicman]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

 

[peach174]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

 

[orogenicman]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

 

[jc456]

I think it is ok to disagree with global warming through using real science to dispute it, but to shit on all science and ask for the destruction of our entire scientific infrastructure? That is a no go.

You've posted real science somewhere?

Lot more then a scum bag like you. Anyone that fights to break our science institutions is nothing short of a traitor.

Well Moron... I have several degree's, so go screw yourself! Our science institutions are corrupted by political whores.. You and your socialist ilk are traitors of the worst kind... Take your hand out mentality with you when you leave and go to Europe where you fools have already destroyed the economies..

LOL. About 98.6 of them, on the F. scale. And that is the extent of your degrees. One can tell by the quality and referances in posts what kind of educational background the poster has.

so kindergarten for you then

 

[jc456]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

 

[jc456]

You've posted real science somewhere?

Lot more then a scum bag like you. Anyone that fights to break our science institutions is nothing short of a traitor.

Well Moron... I have several degree's, so go screw yourself! Our science institutions are corrupted by political whores.. You and your socialist ilk are traitors of the worst kind... Take your hand out mentality with you when you leave and go to Europe where you fools have already destroyed the economies..

LOL. About 98.6 of them, on the F. scale. And that is the extent of your degrees. One can tell by the quality and referances in posts what kind of educational background the poster has.

SO yours would be SHIT! Nice to know how to rate someones intelligence by witch doctoring and seer stones..

What's your plan, Mr.Losertrian? Cut and defund all of our science programs over the fact that you disagree with global warming?? Why not get your self a degree in climate science and argue your case.

why not, it's been wasted anyway! There's been zero value in trillions spent.

 

[orogenicman]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

 

[jc456]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

 

[peach174]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

His is now the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress aresearch institute which is an organization.

 

[orogenicman]

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

 

[orogenicman]

Hey scootsshit, name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Hint - The Heritage Foundation is not one of them (reputable scientific organization, that is).

Bump

Crickets are chirping, even in winter. Amazing.

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

His is now the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress aresearch institute which is an organization.

And his opinion printed in the Wall Street Journal is still his opinion, and doesn't speak for CUSP. If you believe he does, show us their policy statement on AGW. And for the record CUSP offers urban engineering, civil engineering, computer science, and electrical engineering, nothing to do with Climate science, or hard science. Your post is still irrelevant.

 

[peach174]

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

 

[orogenicman]

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

 

[peach174]

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

 

[mamooth]

No, that's a textbook example of a conspiracy theory. You're just postulating some crazy shit that isn't backed by any evidence, and which is contradicted by all the observed evidence.

No denier scientists have gotten fired. How does you kook political cult's conspiracy theory explain that?

And if you're not just bullshitting us, you'll be able to show us those grants that demanded a preordained outcome. After all, all that info is public. If you can prove it, it will be a colossal scandal. So do so. All your fellow deniers will consider you a hero for doing it.

 

[orogenicman]

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

 

[jc456]

No, that's a textbook example of a conspiracy theory. You're just postulating some crazy shit that isn't backed by any evidence, and which is contradicted by all the observed evidence.

No denier scientists have gotten fired. How does you kook political cult's conspiracy theory explain that?

And if you're not just bullshitting us, you'll be able to show us those grants that demanded a preordained outcome. After all, all that info is public. If you can prove it, it will be a colossal scandal. So do so. All your fellow deniers will consider you a hero for doing it.

oh, right, and all the other side money is what you say right? LOL, you all are such hypocrites your siht stinks.

 

[jc456]

Obama's former Under Secretary of Energy for Science Steven E. Koonin.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"Climate Science Is Not Settled," a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that "We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy," and that "The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself." Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the "scientific consensus" (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, "The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time." Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that "Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars

The opinion of an individual is NOT the opinion of a scientific organization. Your post is irrelevant.

it is amazing what happens when these folks get away from the money eh? then the truth is exposed. thank you Mr. Koonin!!!! Setting the orangeman down.

Isn't it amazing that when confronted with a challenge to their conspiracy theories, they soil their pants? Name a reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge global warming. Can't do it? Of course you cannot.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

I know, so it proves my point, your side has no factual test that proves the hypothesis you claim. That s0n is LoSiNg big fnnnnn time.

 

[peach174]

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

That is not and never has been the way it works. Have you ever applied for a scientific grant? No? of course you haven't. I have.

dude, you know that isn't the argument. so stick with the correct one. strawman. As has been said too many times in here, the earth has been warming for one million years. Now, prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to that warming. That s0n is the argument. now stay on track here, I know you have too many ideas of all of our bathroom habits.

And s0n, I created a thread where you can put that little ole experiment for us all to review.

The crickets are getting louder.

You know darn good and well that the organizations are not going to deny it because of their grant funding from their governments.
IT can only be individual scientists that can do it and then they risk their own funding for their individual grants.

Yeah, we know your argument: its all a friggin conspiracy. There are, in fact, legitimate skeptics within the scientific community. And they aren't afraid to use the system to make their point across, via peer reviewed scientific research. You people aren't skeptics. You aren't even scientists. You are hard core right wing AGW deniers.

Oh, and by the way, it is good to see you admit that you can't name one reputable scientific organization that doesn't acknowledge AGW.

It is not a conspiracy it is a fact, that university funding comes from the government and to keep that grant going they have to come up with studies that continue with what the government wants to hear.
I saw it happen for myself in the University of Denver and the University of Arizona research labs.
Those grants are very specific and detailed in what they are looking for and if you don't go by the rules they ask for, you don't get that grant.

Crickets.

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.