Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
So it's a draft that's not even peer reviewed and that's the evidence? Really?
Why don't you watch the video in full and see all the evidence. The alteration of temperature data undermines all scientific integrity.
There are youtube videos 'proving' 9/11 was an inside job, any idiot can make a youtube video and idiots will believe them. Present the data and the peer reviewed paper, that's the way of the science.
They actually post the temperature data sets they use from the government agencies, as well as the model they use for graphing. Go to their website and try it out for yourself.
Here's the original link
https://realclimatescience.com/2017...lity-of-fraud-by-climate-scientists/#comments
Can you show me where they posted the data sets and the models used for graphing?
Below is an article about a peer-reviewed study published by Nature.
Some excerpts below:
http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/
"Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate."
“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”
Here is the study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7642/full/nature21402.html
Some excerpts below:
http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/
"Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate."
“The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis. “Astronomical theory permits a very detailed evaluation of past climate events that may provide an analog for future climate.”
Here is the study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v542/n7642/full/nature21402.html
Again, I would requote what the Koch funded climate skeptic said when he researched the whole thing himself
" What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
Here you go with the bullshit big oil funding argument. I have shown many times on this site that a multiple of money goes to climate alarmist. Therefore, if money is causing bias in science and a multiple goes to the alarmist side, how can alarmist research and papers not be bias?
BTW - How in hell did you respond so quickly? Are you paid by anyone to make your post?
I haven't even researched article you posted yet. How did you find it so quickly?
I did google search of scientist name and that article doesn't even come up on front page of Google. Something seems very fishy.