Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Oh, ok. here's another one then:-
Ooops again.!
Ooops again.!
Try and find one that's a bit more up to date.
It’s a Canadian denier site (think The GWPF) and hosts the likes of big oil lackeys Dr Soon and Susan Crockford together with the fruit loop McKitrick.
The site’s sensationalist style is funny.
https://friendsofscience.org/
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
Or, it will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I wish I'd been lectured at school on the perils of smoking from an early age, it would have saved me a he'll of a lot of cash and "probably" a few health issues that have popped up.
Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Pardon ? Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
PS: polarbearscinece.com? Got something a little less...’bloggy’? Something with a little more gravitas? Something...er...not Susan Crockford?
“In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. ... In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.”
This kinda makes my PS point (above) for me.
You people never stop quoting the rogue scientists associated with The GWPF do you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7
OT but the first program I compiled on a spectrum was a moving graph about the relationship between rabbits and Foxes, the numbers of Foxes are dependent on there food source the rabbits, there will come a point that the available food for the polar bears will not be able to sustain the numbers and will decline allowing the food source to recover before the polar bear numbers increase.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Pardon ?
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
I presume you've got this angle from some advocacy blog but the reality is that there is simply not enough reliable data on polar bear numbers to have any bearing on this topic.Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
Or, it will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I wish I'd been lectured at school on the perils of smoking from an early age, it would have saved me a he'll of a lot of cash and "probably" a few health issues that have popped up.
Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Pardon ? Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
PS: polarbearscinece.com? Got something a little less...’bloggy’? Something with a little more gravitas? Something...er...not Susan Crockford?
“In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. ... In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.”
This kinda makes my PS point (above) for me.
You people never stop quoting the rogue scientists associated with The GWPF do you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7
OT but the first program I compiled on a spectrum was a moving graph about the relationship between rabbits and Foxes, the numbers of Foxes are dependent on there food source the rabbits, there will come a point that the available food for the polar bears will not be able to sustain the numbers and will decline allowing the food source to recover before the polar bear numbers increase.
Misreprenting it aren’t you.
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Oh, ok. here's another one then:-
Ooops again.!
Ooops again.!
Try and find one that's a bit more up to date.
I like how you argue that because the climate is so complex, projecting a future state is extremely difficult, and at the same time argue that the model projections are not accurate enough. I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Pardon ?
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
I presume you've got this angle from some advocacy blog but the reality is that there is simply not enough reliable data on polar bear numbers to have any bearing on this topic.Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
gadgetmac said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Oh, ok. here's another one then:-
Ooops again.!
Ooops again.!
Try and find one that's a bit more up to date.
It’s a Canadian denier site (think The GWPF) and hosts the likes of big oil lackeys Dr Soon and Susan Crockford together with the fruit loop McKitrick.
The site’s sensationalist style is funny.
https://friendsofscience.org/
I had no idea it was such a tough one.
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that hydrological cycle show comes no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
durbster said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If anyone want a glimpse at what is allegedly causing the planets climate to change, we need only walk over and take a look in the nearest mirror.
With global population increasing at rates between 286 and 347 thousand net new humans per DAY, using up the planets resources and turning them into emissions faster and faster. We are only bringing forward the time when the planet cannot sustain our colossal numbers any more.
Or do people believe the planet and its recourses are actually infinite?
We must save the planet for our children they say, as they pop yet another disposable nappy in the bin, after which and producing emissions at ever increasing ratesh they take the children a few mile to school in their multi litre 4WD sprog panzers, whilst buying them the latest resource consuming electrical goods for their delight and delectation.
You post this same thing every couple of months. With global population increasing at rates between 286 and 347 thousand net new humans per DAY, using up the planets resources and turning them into emissions faster and faster. We are only bringing forward the time when the planet cannot sustain our colossal numbers any more.
Or do people believe the planet and its recourses are actually infinite?
We must save the planet for our children they say, as they pop yet another disposable nappy in the bin, after which and producing emissions at ever increasing ratesh they take the children a few mile to school in their multi litre 4WD sprog panzers, whilst buying them the latest resource consuming electrical goods for their delight and delectation.
And it still has little relevance to the thread.
Lets see now. A finite Earth, where `man' is using up its resources, and producing emissions to feed the needs of an ever growing population. Wonder how that is going to work out?
Those who bleat on about MMGW, but who cannot face up to the fact that the resource take up, and resulting emissions (and alleged effects they are having on the planet) may in fact be coming from `man', are the equivalent of people screaming about a fire that is burning a house down, but who strangely go quiet when hundreds of thousands of extra gallons of petrol are poured onto the house, (or worse still try to sweep the fact that man made global warming might be actually being caused by `man' and yet they only want focus on the symptoms and not the ROOT cause)
Whenever the root cause is pointed out to them, the MMGW believers do not seem to have a satisfactory answer. So I will continue to point out the folly of their position every now and again so that they might eventually understand that before one can have MMGW, there has to be enough `man' to have an effect on the planets resources and climate, But not to worry, we are currently doing all we can, to ensure this condition is achieved as soon as possible.
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that hydrological cycle show comes no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that the hydrological cycle shows no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video...
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that the hydrological cycle shows no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video...
To be filed along with the creationist religious claptrap espoused by some of them.
Anti-science 101.
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ accidentally exposes the left’s big lie"
Click
Summary
Click
Summary
- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's talking points on the Green New Deal offer the most unintentionally honest explanation of the neo-socialism now gripping the Democratic Party.
- After her office sent the "FAQ" to NPR, The Washington Post and other news organizations, and posted a similar version on her congressional website, they were met with withering criticism
- Ocasio-Cortez then backtracked seeking to disown and discredit documents her office had produced, posted and distributed.
- The message is clear: We’ll soak the millionaires and billionaires and mega-rich corporations so we can give you free stuff.
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that the hydrological cycle shows no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video...
To be filed along with the creationist religious claptrap espoused by some of them.
Anti-science 101.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Diderot said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
I suppose that's one advantage of having a position based on no tangible evidence; you can just change it at will.
Is it being posited that a climate computer model is tangible evidence?As for tangible evidence in the form of empirical data, it's overwhelmingly contrary to agw claims (hardly surprising given the catslogue of failed predictions) and as you imply, model gigo is not evidence; IPCC conjecture is not evidence.
For evidence of recent climate change as due to natural causes see Mao et al and Newberry et al
For evidence that temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented, try Alley et al
Evidence that Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled and not as hyped is available by cconsulting Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Evidence that glaciers are not retreating due to global warming, see Bookhagen et al and read comments from Prof Ole Humlum involving Svalbard glacier data (and note that a glacier with two snouts can and does show one advancing and one retreating at the same time under the same local temperature)
Evidence that coral changes are not unprecedented given that data on bleaching events seen today are mirrored in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s (Xu et al, Kamenose & Hennige and Andersson et al)
Evidence that sea level changes show no acceleratilon in the tax gas era (as expected from agw) see dala in Holgate, Douglals and other papers
Evidence that global coasts are growing not shrinking can be found in Donchyts et al and Duvat
Evidence of no significant trend in hurricane data is available from Landsea (IPCC resigned), Pielke et al, Weinkle et al
Evidence that floods and Droughts are not intensifying can be located in Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, Barredoare
Evidence from non-cherry-picked intervals that wildfires are not increasing or intensifying is in Doerr and Santin
Evidence that polar bear numbers have increased not decreased can be found in surveys post-dating 2007-2016 e.g. Crockford, York et al
Evidence that jellyfish numbers are not linked to carbon dioxide has been published by Pitt
Evidence that the agw hypothesis within climate models fails against empirical data such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected is in McKitrick and Christy
Evidence that the hydrological cycle shows no detectable global-scale human influence from Nguyen et al
Evidence that tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more tax gas with warming, contrary to models is in Roe
Looking back at that 'no tangible' false assertion (post above) it's reminiscent of advice for agw supporters from Schneider "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".
Bingo!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video...
To be filed along with the creationist religious claptrap espoused by some of them.
Anti-science 101.
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
Or, it will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I wish I'd been lectured at school on the perils of smoking from an early age, it would have saved me a he'll of a lot of cash and "probably" a few health issues that have popped up.
Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Pardon ? Teaching kids Science and how to spot fake news is a good thing.
Some of us have never followed the crowd and smoked, it appeared a stupid thing to do, but due to the drive to reduce CO2, I have to breathe in other people's diesel emissions,
They are not telling them how to spot fake news they are dictating what they should believe,
One girl was being interviewed was talking about polar bears, you know the animal that numbers are increasing, she was saying how would we like our place we live to disappear Infront of you eye's, is that the truth or fake ?
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23/global-pol...
I did read one report that put the number as high as 40,000, this from about 6000 in the 1960s
But I suppose we have to protect the soft cuddly polar bear so it can go about ripping seals apart.
PS: polarbearscinece.com? Got something a little less...’bloggy’? Something with a little more gravitas? Something...er...not Susan Crockford?
“In 2017 Crockford was accused in the environmental publication The Narwhal by polar bear scientist Ian Stirling as having "zero" credibility on polar bears. ... In 2017, Crockford published the State of the Polar Bear Report 2017 for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.”
This kinda makes my PS point (above) for me.
You people never stop quoting the rogue scientists associated with The GWPF do you.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7
OT but the first program I compiled on a spectrum was a moving graph about the relationship between rabbits and Foxes, the numbers of Foxes are dependent on there food source the rabbits, there will come a point that the available food for the polar bears will not be able to sustain the numbers and will decline allowing the food source to recover before the polar bear numbers increase.
Misreprenting it aren’t you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff