Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...onald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, Trump is the real estate King. Maybe he want to own planet with conditions for golf course?
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
just do a google search then and give a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal showing us man made co2 causes warming.
You won't because there isn't any you lying troll.
You won't because there isn't any you lying troll.
How do you know, You've admitted that you refuse to read or pay any attention to anyone or anything that doesn't agree with your agenda?
Oh? Maybe you can find that post.
otherwise
You've admitted to having sex with sheep. What does that say about you? Wool lover maybe?
Sore Spot: Trump Raised 'Climategate' E-Mails of Liberal Activists in NY Times Interview
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...limategate-e-mails-liberal-activists-ny-times
The New York Times released a full transcript of its on-the-record chat with the President-Elect, and while the liberal media sensed a "softening" of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, climate skeptics were pleased he brought up the "Climategate" scandal that liberals would rather forget.
Back in 2009, the Times refused to propagate revealing e-mails between climate-change activists (usually described merely as "scientists") acting very politically and manipulating their science because they were "acquired illegally." This was not the Times standard when someone (perhaps illegally) left the newspaper a few pages of Trump's tax returns.
(More at above url)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...limategate-e-mails-liberal-activists-ny-times
The New York Times released a full transcript of its on-the-record chat with the President-Elect, and while the liberal media sensed a "softening" of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, climate skeptics were pleased he brought up the "Climategate" scandal that liberals would rather forget.
Back in 2009, the Times refused to propagate revealing e-mails between climate-change activists (usually described merely as "scientists") acting very politically and manipulating their science because they were "acquired illegally." This was not the Times standard when someone (perhaps illegally) left the newspaper a few pages of Trump's tax returns.
(More at above url)
You may know this term, as liar/lawyer; Preponderance of evidence. No single paper or data point succintly proves anything, just as it does with evolution, but taken as a whole, the inescapable conclusion, even to rational objective lay people, which you are not, is that AGW is indeed true. That's why every climate expert and science organization on earth agrees that it's true. Exxon. The Weather Channel. The Amer. Met. Society etc. Most them think also that it is a big problem.
You have really have some nerve calling me a liar and troll. I have not lied at all and unlike you I am speaking to the essential truth, not putting up deceptive smokescreens and outright half truths and outright lies.
Have you ever read this book? I doubt it.
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
piezoe knows about this. He's probably one of their players.
Post? .... How about hundreds of posts where you admit to not reading... over and over and over...
THIS IS JUST PAGE 1 of 35 PAGES of Futurecurrents NOT READING IN THE SEARCH RESULTS.
He actively refuses to read anything he disagrees with and get educated. Truly a lost cause. Wallowing in perpetual ignorance.
Ha... you would not even get to a trial.
In court, for expert testimony to be admissible it must come from an expert and it must have a strong foundation in proven science.
You not only don't have a preponderance of the evidence. You have none. you have zero datapoints showing man made co2 causes warming. You have not produced a single peer reviewed article showing man made co2 causes warming.
Whereas we have produced 1350 skeptical articles.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
If you try this case in court you would lose before trial at summary judgment. You have no scientific evidence showing man made co2 causes warming.
In court, for expert testimony to be admissible it must come from an expert and it must have a strong foundation in proven science.
You not only don't have a preponderance of the evidence. You have none. you have zero datapoints showing man made co2 causes warming. You have not produced a single peer reviewed article showing man made co2 causes warming.
Whereas we have produced 1350 skeptical articles.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
If you try this case in court you would lose before trial at summary judgment. You have no scientific evidence showing man made co2 causes warming.
Yes, legitimate sources I read, obviously bullshit sources I do not. Like I don't read the Enquirer for my science. This is common sense which you deniers seem to completely lack.
In every instance I said that it was because the sources were shit. If you cannot tell that they were shit, which of course you can't, that's not my problem.
Obviously you refuse to read scientific papers and research.