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.
i'm confused. i thought she rejected any research or opinion from anyone but ph.d-level climatologists, yet now the claim is that the work and opinions of a senior scientist in climate studies at NASA with a ph.d in meteorology is mysteriously discarded because he was noticed by rush limbaugh
i'm confused. i thought she rejected any research or opinion from anyone but ph.d-level climatologists, yet now the claim is that the work and opinions of a senior scientist in climate studies at NASA with a ph.d in meteorology is mysteriously discarded because he was noticed by rush limbaugh
Nice try. But weak.
Aren't you going to send those folks an email??? I mean, seriously, if they all have only "half a brain," then they desperately need your secret information so that they can be disabused of their errors.
No, it doesn't bother me. Because Wilson actually sees and documents the effects of climate change (and all the things that lead to it, including deforestation) on the species he studies (noting that we are losing 100 species per day to extinction).
yet those EPA scientists who had their paper suppressed last week because it didn't 'fit the agenda' also saw and documented such, but you railed on and on that they weren't believable due to lack of a ph.d in climatology, even though one had a doctorate in environmental science.
how many of those lost species are due to habitat destruction vs. 'climate change'? do you know?
Quote:
BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.
wait a sec. why did AGW proponent rkb0305 say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkb0305
What IS logical is that big business and big oil are in the pockets of the right, and are the ones denying that climate change is happening.
seems odd, next to what you just posted, does it not?
Aren't you going to send those folks an email??? I mean, seriously, if they all have only "half a brain," then they desperately need your secret information so that they can be disabused of their errors.
Yeah, no.
if you can show me evidence that they're having a shrieking alarmist fit even remotely like the one you just had, and claim that the planet is dying? heck yes, i will definitely send them an email.
please post their meltdowns and email addresses here for our viewing and emailing enjoyment.
If you have doubts about global warming because there's not definitive proof, then you must not believe in God. If you do, then you're not being consistent.
If you have doubts about global warming because there's not definitive proof, then you must not believe in God. If you do, then you're not being consistent.
yet those EPA scientists who had their paper suppressed last week because it didn't 'fit the agenda' also saw and documented such, but you railed on and on that they weren't believable due to lack of a ph.d in climatology, even though one had a doctorate in environmental science.
how many of those lost species are due to habitat destruction vs. 'climate change'? do you know?
wait a sec. why did AGW proponent rkb0305 say:
seems odd, next to what you just posted, does it not?
If you have doubts about global warming because there's not definitive proof, then you must not believe in God. If you do, then you're not being consistent.
Thats a great point.
The "Christian" conservatives who reject science in favor of faith based beliefs.
if you can show me evidence that they're having a shrieking alarmist fit even remotely like the one you just had, and claim that the planet is dying? heck yes, i will definitely send them an email.
please post their meltdowns and email addresses here for our viewing and emailing enjoyment.
LMAO. "Shrieking alarmist fit." Looks to me, rather, that you're the one beginning to be a little alarmed: you're anxiously trying to deflect the topic, since you can't really respond that ALL of those organizations and researchers are simply wrong and "half-brained" without looking like an idiot.
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.
