Climategate
08-18-2018, 07:47 AM
#271
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,907
I have no idea what you're talking about. How about we just stick with the consensus amongst climate scientists -- and leave the media, Al Gore, bloggers, and "Snowball" Inhof out of it.
08-18-2018, 11:57 AM
#272
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
08-18-2018, 01:06 PM
#273
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
As an example, the wild fires in California are being blamed on climate change. That is strictly a journalist opinion, that is not a view that actual scientists hold. Just like when CNN reported that flight MH370 exceeded the speed of light opening up a singularity, is not a view held by actual pilots, or anyone sane.
Last edited by Mesabah; 08-18-2018 at 01:19 PM.
08-18-2018, 01:18 PM
#274
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
08-18-2018, 04:58 PM
#275
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
08-19-2018, 06:17 AM
#276
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
And the bottom line is your climate scientists still ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas because they can’t explain its effect and it is the most prominent green house gas. BTW, thanks to fracking, the US has reduced its CO2 emmisions while the rest of the world hasn’t. But it still got hot this summer.
08-19-2018, 06:55 AM
#277
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
08-19-2018, 07:45 AM
#278
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,907
First define climate scientist, then show me their consensus and explain why a physicist, chemist, or hell a geologist can’t explain CO2, but Bill Nye the engineering guy can. Next define how many “climate scientists” claim humans cause climate change. Next tell me how much of the climate change is caused by humans and how much is attributed to volcanic or solar activity.
And the bottom line is your climate scientists still ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas because they can’t explain its effect and it is the most prominent green house gas. BTW, thanks to fracking, the US has reduced its CO2 emmisions while the rest of the world hasn’t. But it still got hot this summer.
And the bottom line is your climate scientists still ignore water vapor as a greenhouse gas because they can’t explain its effect and it is the most prominent green house gas. BTW, thanks to fracking, the US has reduced its CO2 emmisions while the rest of the world hasn’t. But it still got hot this summer.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
How about theses guys?The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm
The evidence of consensus is quite clear if you remove the blinders of what you want to believe and open your mind to the facts.
In any event, there's really no reason to continue with this back-and-forth is there? I'd wager the probability of us not changing each other's mind at --- 97%
08-19-2018, 08:02 AM
#279
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Would you trust the self-serving, partisan, agenda-grabbing nuts over at NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
How about theses guys?The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm
The evidence of consensus is quite clear if you remove the blinders of what you want to believe and open your mind to the facts.
In any event, there's really no reason to continue with this back-and-forth is there? I'd wager the probability of us not changing each other's mind at --- 97%
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
How about theses guys?The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm
The evidence of consensus is quite clear if you remove the blinders of what you want to believe and open your mind to the facts.
In any event, there's really no reason to continue with this back-and-forth is there? I'd wager the probability of us not changing each other's mind at --- 97%
We could have had clean nuclear power, if the left hadn't poopoo'd about it. Solar and wind actually increase our dependence on WMGHG's. We could have avoided all of this, but mismanagement from the left, set us back, perhaps forever.
08-19-2018, 08:07 AM
#280
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,907
Okay, let's say you're 100% right, so now what? Park all of Delta's aircraft, and go on unemployment? That's what you are asking for.
We could have had clean nuclear power, if the left hadn't poopoo'd about it. Solar and wind actually increase our dependence on WMGHG's. We could have avoided all of this, but mismanagement from the left, set us back, perhaps forever.
We could have had clean nuclear power, if the left hadn't poopoo'd about it. Solar and wind actually increase our dependence on WMGHG's. We could have avoided all of this, but mismanagement from the left, set us back, perhaps forever.
Renewable, solar, nuclear, carbon tax.
