Wait, you mean all the frothing, and foaming over "global warming" was based on manipulated, or incomplete data, and flawed models? I......AM.......SHOCKED!!!!!!
Ok,
1. how does that refute the Duke scientists?
2. The study provided by the Florida commission is just another group using their conclusion first, then working to prove the conclusion....That's NOT science.
For every one study that diminishes the effects of climate change there's ten that substantiate them.
Yeah...you guy....Anthropogenic Global Warming...is not a "real" scientific term.....you.....guy!don't hijack real scientific terms
That there's a far greater body of scientific work documenting climate change and it's ill effects to the environment. Thought it was clear enough.
What you mean my government has had me paying a 20% carbon tax levy on my energy bills for the last 5 years .... for NOTHING !
Meanwhile in the real world just look at what all that extra nasty nasty CO2 has been doing for us while it hasn't been following the doomsday models
Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research. In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa
So it turns out that all this demonized extra CO2 has actually been a good thing for the biosphere ! Who'd have thunk it :shock:
Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions -- ScienceDaily
I wonder if our friend 3idiots has seen this?
Oh please don't give him any encouragement to troll this thread too
Have you read any of those studies ? I have and they are modelled speculation piled on modelled speculation. There is no empircal evidence whatsoever confirming the AGW hypothesis in any of them and there never has been. There is also a very large body of contrarian work contradicting it that is being ignored because of the money and politics
Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
AGW is a tax raising vehicle for politicians and they pay handsomely for anything that will bolster it hence the plethora of worthless speculative studies being produced
No, there is a political/economic incentive to greatly exaggerate the affects of man with dubious science
Nice!
How about a 6" lowering kit?Naa, that'd prolly be too much.
With speed, you're going to need some handling, right?
A true believer? This isn't faith based. So no, I don't believe anything.So I accept its likelihood.But there's far mor studies that acknowledge it then dispute it.The only agenda I see is a desire to have a stable environment with clean air, water and preservation of the status quo.What's unfortunate to me is that it's politicized to begin with.
Those 2 statements don't make you go hmmmmm?
Volume of studies is the evidence?
You mean like 97% of climate scientists?
That's been shown to be BS.
So yes it is faith-based ... I'd wager that most laymen who have bought into AGW have done it on faith.
Just how much have you read from skeptics?
The failures of climate models & false predictions get nowhere near the ink that the alarmists did when they made them.
Looking at who's promoting AGW most should ring alarm bells for anyone.
Right, and the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world are a part of that tax raising conspiracy.
You mean like 97% of climate scientists?
That's been shown to be BS.
Well, no it doesn't make me say hmmmmmm. And yes, it's unfortunate that such a thing is generally (but not universally) politicized in left verses right. You're suggesting that scientists the world over are involved in a conspiracy with left wing political groups to scam the worlds populations of more money. That just seems incredible.
And I am watching who's promoting the need for change.
Oil, gas industry launches ‘immediate-impact’ plan to slash global warming emissions
Oil, gas industry launches
And turkeys don't vote for christmas. I've already illustrated at some length using actual peer reviewed sources that this whole agenda is simply politicized bunkum.
C3: Global Warming: Evidence-Facts Vs. CO2-AGW
1) Is man burning fossil fuels that in turn release CO2 that is not currently part of the natural atmospheric (and oceanic, too, for that matter) CO2 cycle?
2) Does said CO2 have IR active vibrational modes?
3) If your answer to 1 and 2 is yes, then it isn't "bunkum"
You leave out whether or not it is actually a significant driver of atmospheric change....By far, the overwhelming driver of that is water vapor....Good luck controlling that.
Yeah...you guy....Anthropogenic Global Warming...is not a "real" scientific term.....you.....guy!
So says 97% of 0.75% of the scientists who were invited to participate in an online survey?
Yeah, I've been looking at different packages to increase stability as I ramp up HP....It came factory with the 20" rims to make it stand taller, but amazingly it grips the road pretty good even at aggressive speeds entering curves while downshifting into acceleration....But, at the exact moment, I am speaking with my mech about re configuring the ECM to take advantage of the increased air induction....He says that can improve HP by another 20 to 40 HP without really blowing the wallet out of the water...That would take me to around 470.....
Well, no it doesn't make me say hmmmmmm. And yes, it's unfortunate that such a thing is generally (but not universally) politicized in left verses right. You're suggesting that scientists the world over are involved in a conspiracy with left wing political groups to scam the worlds populations of more money. That just seems incredible.
And I am watching who's promoting the need for change.
Oil, gas industry launches ‘immediate-impact’ plan to slash global warming emissions
Oil, gas industry launches
So says 97% of 0.75% of the scientists who were invited to participate in an online survey?
Can you say LOL?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?