I must say, even I am surprised that there really isn't single publishing (peer reviewed) climatologist that expressly denies AGW. Except that Russian guy who works for their oil industry so I don't include him.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
do you enjoy lying your ass off on something so easily refuted...
here is list of hundreds of papers...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Clouds
here is one...
Arctic Warming is not Greenhouse Warming
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.22.8.1069
here is list of hundreds of papers...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Clouds
here is one...
Arctic Warming is not Greenhouse Warming
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.22.8.1069
Amazing.
Now I see why you are a failed real estate lawyer. You have no reading comprehension. It's like someone asks you for a soda and you give him a rock and say it's soda. Basically, you're a goddamn liar.
No
publishing
climatologist
expressly denies man made global warming.
Last edited:
Not at all. I just want us to be flexible in the present, with a path towards complete elimination of fossil fuels by a certain date in the future.
No the bible has been proven wrong long ago by radio-active dating so I don't have to worry about that case. However, suppose you asked a more pertinent question and said, "How does one live their life under uncertainty?" This is not an easy to answer, and I refer you to Hume. In Hume we begin to see the beginnings of science:
[Introduction - David Hume
The Philosopher David Hume is famous for making us realize that until we know the Necessary Connection / cause of things then all human knowledge is uncertain, merely a habit of thinking based upon repeated observation (induction), and which depends upon the future being like the past.
We should respect Hume's open mind, which is necessary if we are to ever consider new ideas and thus advance Human knowledge.
I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me. (David Hume, 1737)
I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. (David Hume, 1737)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm
]
I will add that science supplants philosophy, any time the observables are quantitatively defined and in focus. That is the place one wants to get to in any field. Where the elements are quantitatively defined. Then you can do falsifiable science.
In America how much grant money does the guy get who downplays MMGW, The answer is 0.
FecalCurrents, you clearly dont even understand the 'science' of the warming hoaxsters.As we clearly see, there has been no pause and temps are still rapidly increasing and almost exactly within the models predictions. And the recent new highs last year not shown on this chart puts the temps even more within the center range of the models.
How is life in your parents basement?
your sentence is proven stupidity. there is no reason to deny warming, we have warmed since the last ice age... the issues are whether man made co2 is causing it and if so how much.
but this is a fact.... for the last years you have been trolling and you have no science that man made co2 is causing net warming on the earth.
but this is a fact.... for the last years you have been trolling and you have no science that man made co2 is causing net warming on the earth.
You must be blind because I have posted this multiple times now. But of course we know the real problem is that you are a goddamn liar.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
where is there any science in your link showing man made co2 is causing warming.
models do not count.
observation that we have warmed does not show man did it.
considering radiation comes in an out of the planet does not show adding man made co2 to the mix causes warming.
especially when we know co2 causes cooling.
you have to show net warming.
the science we do have shows that co2 levels lag warming and cooling.
you get that... co2 lags warming. that is the science we have and it peer reviewed.
it lags air temps by about 9 mos and water temps by 12 months.
models do not count.
observation that we have warmed does not show man did it.
considering radiation comes in an out of the planet does not show adding man made co2 to the mix causes warming.
especially when we know co2 causes cooling.
you have to show net warming.
the science we do have shows that co2 levels lag warming and cooling.
you get that... co2 lags warming. that is the science we have and it peer reviewed.
it lags air temps by about 9 mos and water temps by 12 months.