negligible on on the climate, very big on the petro economy. If the earth warms as much as they say it will, population will take care of itself. Although there are some studies that suggest that as women become thinner (like in times of starvation) their fertility increases. Something about the preservation of man. Makes sense, people tend to have fewer children when times are good. It's getting now to where if you want to have a healthy young generation to pay for all we have borrowed from, you are going to need to import.
Say goodbye to barrier beaches and coastal salt marshes
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
It seems plants also can respond to certain kinds of stress in a similar way. Producing, for example, more bloom and seed, or even blooming out of season if the stress is great enough. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in late August, 2005, some plants in the hardest hit region, i.e., the Mississippi Gulf Coast region, opened buds and flowered that same Fall. The plants that did this are plants that normally form their flower buds in the Fall, carry them through the winter, and open them in the early spring.
yes, but Hurricane Katrina is one thing, BP oil spill is another
Again, piezoe says very foolish things about AGW.......
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other thanCO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other thanCO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Last edited:
Sea levels will parallel temps. Invest in companies that build sea walls..
Sea levels will parallel temps. Invest in companies that build sea walls..
You are aware that most coastal states don't allow sea walls.
no, but if the taxpayers in Montana and Indiana are forced to pay for them and the government gives the coastal states money to build them they will
"By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other thanCO2 emissions for observed warming. "Again, piezoe says very foolish things about AGW.......
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.
By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other thanCO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.
Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.
http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
Next find the number of peer reviewed articles that clearly endorse man caused CO2 emissions as the primary cause of observed warming. The number will be similar or perhaps even smaller.
Next find the number of biology papers that clearly endorse evolution.
It's solid bedrock proven science. You may be stuck in some warped past but really, science is has moved on.
Did you read this link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15]
the last time I read that... I had to explain to him that his new gas is 2000 times more powerful than co2.
if you are saying that in the last few months a few major companies are looking to work with a new gas or co2 you would be correct.
But, fc as of a few months ago was still installing the "eco terrorist" gas and will be for years.
if you are saying that in the last few months a few major companies are looking to work with a new gas or co2 you would be correct.
But, fc as of a few months ago was still installing the "eco terrorist" gas and will be for years.