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.
AGW is a hoax designed to expand the power and wealth of the state.
That's awful! So why don't warmers support nuclear power?
More fudged data?
Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.
That's awful! So why don't warmers support nuclear power?
We do. Why don't you support wind and solar?
Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.
The first graph is prior to Karl et al 2015. The second graph is from Karl et al.
Why does the first graph look flat but the new data shows otherwise? I believe there was a slow down.
Certainly with 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, people have reason to be less than confident with the safety record of nuclear power. However, as bad as those were, the number of deaths, injuries and serious health effects produced by the mining and combustion of coal dwarfs the numbers taken down by nuclear power.
Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..
But not CO2 absorption.Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..
Crick is really light on his facts
At least he understands radiation.
But not CO2 absorption.Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..
Crick is really light on his facts
At least he understands radiation.
Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..
So the question is how much. How much does 10 ppm of CO2 hold of radiated energy what's the temperature of that CO2? .9° C in the ocean?But not CO2 absorption.Crick is really light on his facts to support his tripe, none of which he can supported by facts. It's amazing the number of logical fallacies made in the OP..
Crick is really light on his facts
At least he understands radiation.
CO2 absorbs energy and re-emits it, even toward the warmer surface of the Earth.