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 daily mail seems to be a major source of AGW denier's mis-information, so I think I will put this post in my junk file.
Better he link to a ginned up "science"-for-profit site sponsored by a series of billionaire foundations, endowments and non-profits so the uber-wealthy can rape the middle class some more via their massive tax scheme!
You say he chose not to respond? He did respond. In fact, you were the one who posted his response in this very thread. Schmidt tweeted what the DailyMail asserted wasn't news.
He didn't deny he spoke with the DailyMail reporter or the paper's assertions, Trex.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 01-19-2015 at 03:19 PM..
No, but the strongest theories tend to be the most popular.
How could all of these publications with long histories of reporting science be so easily duped, while blogs that have been around for less than a decade and right wing news/opinion columns are always accurate and the only ones able to rise above the muck?
Group think is not immune to error. The world was flat, the solar system revolved around the earth, leaches cured infected blood, et al. What you say is exactly right though, AGW is a theory. These same scientists who theorize this are being paid/incentivized to create a "problem" for the elite's "solution" and they've been proven wrong on AGW over and over and over. Global starvation by 2000, hockey stick model, 100% certain all arctic icecaps melted by 2012, the refusal to engage in scientific debate, lying and falsifying data at East Anglia, the muzzling of top scientists in the EPA, banning the top scientists from climate change conferences, banning mentions of skepticism from the BBC, top scientists defecting from the IPCC accusing it of data manipulation, group think and fraud, etc etc. After watching the corruption of this issue, doesn't a bit of skepticism seem warranted? If AGW is self evident as so many believe, then why do it's supporters have to fake the data, create false alarm, muzzle the skeptics, avoid scientific debate, etc? It just doesn't pass the smell test.
You say he chose not to respond? He did respond. In fact, you were the one who posted his response. Schmidt tweeted what the Daily News asserted wasn't news.
He didn't deny he spoke with them or deny their assertions, Trex.
Did you even read your own crappy article?
Quote:
However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond.
Convenient avoiding his other recent comments.
This thread would have him as a source of authority on the matter.
As such, you must support his other findings on the matter.
Quote:
But the underlying trend, the trends that we have seen since the 1970s particularly, that’s being driven, that’s being pushed.
And it’s being pushed mainly by carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, which are adding to the greenhouse effect, which is making the planet warmer.
Do we really need an entire thread dedicated to this?
And way to pile on the nasty adjectives to emphasize just how horrific it is that this might very well be only the second or (gasp!) third warmest year in recorded history. I guess that means global warming is over!
People who have the truth don't need to lie about their data. People who have the truth don't need to destroy their data. The AGW hoax is being exposed more and more for what it really is; an attempt to expand government power and take trillions of dollars from workers and give it to the rich elite.
I'm 62% sure these Global Warming nuts are all about increasing GODvernment in our lives. Their theories are falling apart, but don't worry, another will be along to scare the gullible into turning over their incomes to save us all from certain death!
You do realize that a margin of error works both ways, right? For recent years the GISS margin of error for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, so it could have been that much warmer
Some of the top climate scientists have emphasized that the year-to-year variations matter less than the background trend. This has been made clear by record-warm years that have happened over the past 15 years without the help of a strong El Nino.
NOAA's ground based temperature stations.... Lots of gray (missing) there
Global temps may be 0.7C higher now than what they were 50 or 100 years ago (of course not all of that is due to man), but the satellite data (both RSS and UAH) says global atmospheric temperatures haven't really budged over the last 20 years, and that 2014 was not anywhere near the warmest year in the last 20....
The American Petroleum Institute now acknowledges that AGW is real as do many conservatives. You need to start getting with the program and debating solutions rather than the discredited notion of whether AGW is occurring.
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.
