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.
Just a fraction of the stories that are out there claiming just the opposite.
AP has been thoroughly invested for years in moving along the AGW agenda. What would you expect from their final "conclusion"?
They were fairly hard on them besides the relevant point.
yes everything supporting GW is invested in it but all the things you cite are unbiased and correct. 90% scientist agreement outweighs you and your blogs
Just a fraction of the stories that are out there claiming just the opposite.
AP has been thoroughly invested for years in moving along the AGW agenda. What would you expect from their final "conclusion"?
They were fairly hard on them besides the relevant point.
yes everything supporting GW is invested in it but all the things you cite are unbiased and correct. 90% scientist agreement outweighs you and your blogs
yes everything supporting GW is invested in it but all the things you cite are unbiased and correct. 90% scientist agreement outweighs you and your blogs
For people truly interested in facts, I suggest exploring the wealth of research documented on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website. In particular, see the WG1: The Physical Science Basis.
Eh....I wonder if the completely political IPCC asked this man for his opinion on rising sea levels;
Ok folks, read the links I provided, read the IPCC statements provided by the other poster. Do some thinking on your own. Don't let ignorant arguments of fallacious merit determine facts. Let facts determine themselves.
Such a disgrace, though this behavior speaks volumes. This isn't science and these are not intellectual supporters. This is simply a cult with ignorant fanatical supporters. People really are easy to manipulate. It is sad.
It was the chart displayed on the first page of the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ of the 2001 IPCC report - the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph that has been endlessly reproduced in everything from newspapers to primary-school textbooks ever since, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a dizzying, almost vertical rise in the late 20th Century.
There could be no simpler or more dramatic representation of global warming, and if the origin of worldwide concern over climate change could be traced to a single image, it would be the hockey stick.
This image really started the hysteria from the believers and THE push for AGW.
This is just devastating evidence of just how much they manipulated the data.
really? according to this survey of over 3000 scientists they do.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner; THE preeminent scientist on sea levels.
You know all the IPCC did was review science right? they didn't create it themselves or do their own studies. They are a peer review panel.
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.