Of course I disagree with this. Lindzen is, to my way of thinking, the climate scientist that's been right the longest. He was among the first, the actual first I think, to point out the difficulty of modeling clouds correctly. The article does state his position correctly however.
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ –
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
The amount of flights they take are a very tiny percentage of all flights. Like plastics in the oceans.
The sun only shines during the day.According to article, if solar farms with 20% efficient cells were installed in the boxes on map, they would be able to supply the world's energy needs.
Of course you like Lindzen. He's a climate misinformer like you and has been wrong more times than polar bears have eaten seals, like you. Too many to list. Please refer to this link.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
January 27, 2012
Lindzen is a signatory to an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” [20]
Other signatories include Claude Allègre, J. Scott Armstrong, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, andAntonino Zichichi.
Skeptical Science summarized how the list of signatories “only includes four scientists who have actually published climate research in peer-reviewed journals, and only two who have published climate research in the past three decades.” Also, almost half have received funding from oil companies and big industry. [21]
Media Transparency reported similar findings more in-depth here. [22]
March 8 - 10, 2009
Lindzen was a keynote speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. [6]
Sponsors of the 2009 conference have collectively received over $47 million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.
Last edited:
not really. The carbon in fossil fuels was at one time in the air. When you burn fossil fuels you are putting it back where it came from. You are putting the water back to.
not really. The carbon in fossil fuels was at one time in the air. When you burn fossil fuels you are putting it back where it came from. You are putting the water back to.
Yes yes, we know. I call CO2 that hasn't seen the atmosphere for three hundred million years "new". Good job being trite though. At least you are not lying this time.
Global Warming is a yawner. Politicians that want to legislate about it want to transfer money from the successful people on Earth to the shitheads that will never succeed. That would be the UN, it's a muzzie dominated thingy and they mostly live in dirt floor places with chickens and goats and are inbred beyond belief. If you go to their countries and get some raw materials and manufacture something and sell it to them, they won't start manufacturing it themselves, instead they will bitch about being exploited. Democrats get all their ideas from the UN and many of them become spokesholes for muzzies as a result. Obama simply is a muzzie, he's said it a few times when he didn't know he was on camera so hell yeah, he's all about GW.
In another vein: You can burn wood to heat your home and put the ashes on your garden. It's all minerals. Grow some legacy veggies with great soil and you simply will not believe how good food can actually be. Some might lose their anxieties about GW and become non-alarmist persons if they had some real food instead of this factory farmed shit in the US.
In another vein: You can burn wood to heat your home and put the ashes on your garden. It's all minerals. Grow some legacy veggies with great soil and you simply will not believe how good food can actually be. Some might lose their anxieties about GW and become non-alarmist persons if they had some real food instead of this factory farmed shit in the US.
Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...k-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/62...k-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA
"
Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.
The study found existing models for climate change had been too simplistic and did not account for these factors.
"This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the future estimate rise at 1.8°F (1.0°C).
But the new NASA study dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C).
Mr Schmidt said: “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.”
"
James Hansen's legacy lives on at GISS, continuing to embarrass all of NASA's legitimate scientists.
If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.
"Mr Schmidt said: “If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver.”
Why should Hansen be embarrassing? He is one of the most respected climate scientists in the world.
The models have been correct in their predictions. If anything, they may be underestimating the temp rise due to not considering all feedback loops such as the decrease in albedo and release of methane from permafrost and marine methyl calthrates. Which is what Mr Schmidt is saying. What part of that don't you understand?
No, it is paid shill climate disinformers/liars like you that are sad and embarrassing to the human race.