This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.
global warming 43 min
Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
They won't watch it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.
global warming 43 min
Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
Charles said that those who believe and spread the word of global warming ignore ALL information that disputes their knowledge of the subject. This is making an ignorant claim.
This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.
global warming 43 min
Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"
I will watch it. Just a quesiton. Does it have any actual science in it?
This link has the actual science.
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
I will watch it. Just a quesiton. Does it have any actual science in it?
No it is not. The mantra from you guys is that any report or study that disputes man made Global warming is funded by big oil and thus a lie. Any Scientist that publishes anything that disagrees with man made Global warming, according to you guys, is on the pay roll of Big Oil or is not really a scientist at all. You do not even dispute the information, just paint it as tainted and ignore it.
Most of the evidence presented against global warming comes from sources that profit from the use of oil. If this source is not linked or funded to an energy corporation, AND it is peer reviewed, then I will take the time to read through the study. I will not waste my time reading information that is not peer reviewed.
That's the million dollar question. He sure went to some great lengths if he's lieing. He wrote a paper. Added 3000 words of clarification from what would have to be fake reviews. And wrote a letter to the president of the APS. From listening to him speak I have no reason to believe he's lieing. The facts that I understand in his paper are not really in contention. We have indeed experienced no warming in the last 7-10 years.
Funny how most of the climate studies stop their data with 2005. 2006 and 2007 were two very cold years. It took 100 years for the global average temp to rise .7 F. .63 of that .7 has been WIPED OUT in the last two years alone.
Why? Solar activity has declined at the fastest rate since modern measuring began in the early 1960's.
Most climate studies stop their data with 2005?
Why do you lie?
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
Isn't that really just an excuse to not expose yourself to an alternative view?
Again it was peer reviewed, the APS lied about it and I have seen no evidence that he is linked to big oil (not that it would inherently make his findings inaccurate anyway).
You think you're side isn't lobbying scientists to find what they want them to find? Based on your thinking I should disregard any articles linked to Green Peace or the Sierra Club right?
No excuse. I read alternative views that are peer reviewed. I don't read studies that are not put through the rigors of the scientific community. It really isn't a hard concept.
So actually the answer to the question was yes. Doesn't really matter in this case though. It was peer reviewed so i guess you need to come up with a better excuses.
Are you dense? Peer review is a proven process. I'm not reading some bullshit study. In fact, I've barely even commented on my global warming views in this forum, yet you say I'm so biased that I won't even open my eyes to alternative data. Is this a trend with you anti-GW crowd? Blame anyone who doesn't agree with you as an Al Gore worshiping enviro-wacko..
Are you dense? Peer review is a proven process. I'm not reading some bullshit study. In fact, I've barely even commented on my global warming views in this forum, yet you say I'm so biased that I won't even open my eyes to alternative data. Is this a trend with you anti-GW crowd? Blame anyone who doesn't agree with you as an Al Gore worshiping enviro-wacko..
Is basic english not your first language? You have sited one source and he said MOST, not ALL.
One source?
These are the people whose job it is to study the climate for NASA.
This is not some lone crackpot with a PHD.
Big difference.
Most climate studies stop their data with 2005?
Why do you lie?
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation