Global Warming Is A Net Benefit To Mankind (interview, leader, claim)
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.
then let me restate, did you know that during most of the earths history in which both Flora and Fauna developed, the CO2 level was above 1200ppm?
There is that better?
That's slightly better. But still pretty meaningless. For much of that time the flora and fauna that you are talking about amounted to little more than ameoba. It took a few million years of work by cyanobacteria to create enough oxygen to support more complex life. Humans have been around for 160,000 yrs or so. So the vast amount of time when our environment was inhospitable to intelligent life is more of a warning to us than anything else.
Nothing. And you look silly even contemplating such stupidity.
Why are you covering for these people?
It's beginning to appear that global warming researchers were intentionally trying to make the data fit a predetermined scenario that man was responsible for global warming, and the more dire their predictions the more money the U.N. shoved their way. If these scientists were "tricking" the data to fit their hypothesis, that's called criminal fraud.
Do you really think scientists can't be corrupted by money? You can call it silly all you want, but the researchers at CRU could be in very serious trouble.
Not covering for them. I've just read the sentences from the stolen emails. They aren't damning in the least (except for people who are predisposed to deny AGW).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside
It's beginning to appear that global warming researchers were intentionally trying to make the data fit a predetermined scenario that man was responsible for global warming, and the more dire their predictions the more money the U.N. shoved their way. If these scientists were "tricking" the data to fit their hypothesis, that's called criminal fraud.
No, it's not beginning to look like that at all. And "trick" in the context of the email means exactly what thousands of scientists say it means: "technique." He was describing a statistical method to remove one part of one set of data because it diverged from every other source of data. And since that deviation was inexplicable, he removed it. Every other source of data showed rising temperatures. Only the tree ring data didn't, and only after 1960. When scientists discover the cause of that deviation, they will either be justified in removing that data, or will have to revise their projections somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside
Do you really think scientists can't be corrupted by money? You can call it silly all you want, but the researchers at CRU could be in very serious trouble.
That's slightly better. But still pretty meaningless. For much of that time the flora and fauna that you are talking about amounted to little more than ameoba. It took a few million years of work by cyanobacteria to create enough oxygen to support more complex life. Humans have been around for 160,000 yrs or so. So the vast amount of time when our environment was inhospitable to intelligent life is more of a warning to us than anything else.
what a goof ball.
then lets narrow it down to post Triassic (even though man could very well have survived in the atmosphere of the Triassice).
from 200 million years ago to now, all of which was a period that humans could have survived in that atmosphere, the CO2 level was above 1000 ppm for most of the period.
then lets narrow it down to post Triassic (even though man could very well have survived in the atmosphere of the Triassice).
from 200 million years ago to now, all of which was a period that humans could have survived in that atmosphere, the CO2 level was above 1000 ppm for most of the period.
You're the one being imprecise in your language. Every point you've made up until now has made no sense. And you want to blame someone else? You want to call names?
Perhaps it's time that you post your source, as you appear to be completely incapable of interpreting the data, or of understanding the ramifications.
You're the one being imprecise in your language. Every point you've made up until now has made no sense. And you want to blame someone else? You want to call names?
Perhaps it's time that you post your source, as you appear to be completely incapable of interpreting the data, or of understanding the ramifications.
Were you that girl in the video that Monckton was interviewing? I think so..
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.
