Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 97% consensus number is B.S. and has been debunked many times on these forums.
As for billions of dollars of influence, how much money do you think flows into AGW research and green initiatives that are all predicated on more alarmism?
You really need a name change, as I see very little reason in anything you post.
The 97% consensus number is B.S. and has been debunked many times on these forums.
As for billions of dollars of influence, how much money do you think flows into AGW research and green initiatives that are all predicated on more alarmism?
Are you another that thinks climate scientists should work pro-bono?
The 97% consensus number is B.S. and has been debunked many times on these forums.
So what? It's just a forum for anonymous nobodies to chat online. Do you really think your personal opinion and the opinions of other anonymous climate change deniers on forums is really important or relevant to climate change? Do you think that because you believe you've debunked something it actually makes it so?
If that's what you think you need to do a reality check. The deniers are all just clueless throw-away hecklers throwing garbage from the peanut gallery.
So you must think the atmosphere is the only place that earth stores heat, right?
We have estimated an increase of 24 × 1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth's climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000*m), 1955–2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
One can only conclude from the above that the earth has not stopped heating...It is right there in the oceans.
So, do you think the alarmists should ditch the 2 degree C surface temperature metric?
So you must think the atmosphere is the only place that earth stores heat, right?
We have estimated an increase of 24 × 1022 J representing a volume mean warming of 0.09°C of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. If this heat were instantly transferred to the lower 10 km of the global atmosphere it would result in a volume mean warming of this atmospheric layer by approximately 36°C (65°F). This transfer of course will not happen; earth's climate system simply does not work like this. But this computation does provide a perspective on the amount of heating that the earth system has undergone since 1955. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000*m), 1955–2010 - Levitus - 2012 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
One can only conclude from the above that the earth has not stopped heating...It is right there in the oceans.
Hey that's my link
Glad to see that people are finally realizing that the UN with these annual climate summits are one big waste of time.
Politicians aren't going to support policies that the public do not want, especially when it will dramatically hit the tax payer where it hurts.
In the end. No one will do jack ****, because know one can pay for it what is being asked.
45 trillion (best case scenario)? Or 545 trillion (worst case scenario)? And that's just to reduce our co2 emission to 1990 levels by 2050. NOT becoming carbon neutral by any means.... Just to go down to 1990 levels http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ad...93-2008.08.pdf
Actually, it says nothing - since it is the warmanista camp that is divided on the topic.
(Some want to follow the science while others want to follow the politics)
Are you another that thinks climate scientists should work pro-bono?
Obviously no one is suggesting that scientists work for free, that is nothing but a straw man argument and a diversion.
What I am saying that if science is capable of being corrupted by the influence of big oil it is also capable of being corrupted by the influence of billions of dollars thrown at climate change research and green energy initiatives YEARLY!
Do you really think organizations like NASA, the NSA or the EPA, who now enjoy more power, funding and influence than ever are eager to report science that might suggest AGW might be more of a natural occurrence or might not be as big a deal as they thought?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
