Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
she alone, ha funny stuff, it's obvious you haven't done any research. get back to me when you have at least looked into the other sides team. Seems you're but a wanderer, and trolling for something. But legitimate is far from what you are.who cares, she is a respected scientist and she disproves all of what you're proposing in here, especially Michael Mann. You're hung up on organizations and I say whoopty do.you're hung up on the oil companies and yet you have no ties to throw out as logic. I gave you Judith Curry, what say you?why do you doubt him? then you're calling him a liar, and I find that uncalled for. I simply stated, one more time, if you want respect, you extend respect. I respect old socks and his geology effort, why not, good for him. It doesn't make him any more qualified in my eyes than me, but hey why should I doubt him? What's it to you if he is or isn't a meteorologist? Still a message board full of stupid on a daily basis.
He's using his claim as a meteorologist as if he knows something. I don't see much respect going back and forth and I'm not asking for any, you seem to be under the impression I care. I just want a a source who does not believe in climate change that is not full of wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry, I don't need to play patty cake, so take your one sided moralizing elsewhere.
She believes in man made climate change though to a lesser extant. She has not convinced any entity she is a member of and she by herself is not an organization.
How does she alone disprove anything? She also doesn't disbelieve in made made climate change either.
nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not? Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.tell me the climate scientist from Ford and GM?you mean this?
I have no idea what you're referring to with this post.
I know that GMC and Ford have received government money.
Tell me about Ford receiving money.
And you want to claim that GM believes in global warming because it was bailed out? That's quite a stretch.
I don't believe they have any. I didn't ask the same from your side either.
I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
she alone, ha funny stuff, it's obvious you haven't done any research. get back to me when you have at least looked into the other sides team. Seems you're but a wanderer, and trolling for something. But legitimate is far from what you are.who cares, she is a respected scientist and she disproves all of what you're proposing in here, especially Michael Mann. You're hung up on organizations and I say whoopty do.you're hung up on the oil companies and yet you have no ties to throw out as logic. I gave you Judith Curry, what say you?He's using his claim as a meteorologist as if he knows something. I don't see much respect going back and forth and I'm not asking for any, you seem to be under the impression I care. I just want a a source who does not believe in climate change that is not full of wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry, I don't need to play patty cake, so take your one sided moralizing elsewhere.
She believes in man made climate change though to a lesser extant. She has not convinced any entity she is a member of and she by herself is not an organization.
How does she alone disprove anything? She also doesn't disbelieve in made made climate change either.
nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not? Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.tell me the climate scientist from Ford and GM?Tell me about Ford receiving money.
And you want to claim that GM believes in global warming because it was bailed out? That's quite a stretch.
I don't believe they have any. I didn't ask the same from your side either.
I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
I got the correct one, here it's spelled J u d i t h C u r r y. She actually has a web site Climate Etc. she has quite a following, so much so she's been invited for her input into congressional reviews. The APS also asked her for her input, but decided the non science folks within its doors were smarter than an actual scientist.she alone, ha funny stuff, it's obvious you haven't done any research. get back to me when you have at least looked into the other sides team. Seems you're but a wanderer, and trolling for something. But legitimate is far from what you are.who cares, she is a respected scientist and she disproves all of what you're proposing in here, especially Michael Mann. You're hung up on organizations and I say whoopty do.you're hung up on the oil companies and yet you have no ties to throw out as logic. I gave you Judith Curry, what say you?
She believes in man made climate change though to a lesser extant. She has not convinced any entity she is a member of and she by herself is not an organization.
How does she alone disprove anything? She also doesn't disbelieve in made made climate change either.
So, I guess you picked the wrong scientist.
Of course there are climate scientists who genuinely believe climate change is not happening. However they are enormously outnumbered and they haven't convinced anyone. So, to fill the ranks the wingnuts pick people who are not climate scientists to help fill the ranks and then use dubious wingnut sources to help support their argument.
^EDIT: Whoa, that's some bad grammar.
Sorry, you've failed. But, I'll give you credit, you at least tried to try.
exactly, do you have a name of a scientist not funded by government money and agrees with AGW?nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not? Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.tell me the climate scientist from Ford and GM?
I don't believe they have any. I didn't ask the same from your side either.
I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
I didn't say it was your question, you brought up government funding all on your own and then let me know you're not concerned about it. Ok, I'm just trying to roll with ya'. I think you're getting yourself confused.
exactly, do you have a name of a scientist not funded by government money and agrees with AGW?nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not? Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.I don't believe they have any. I didn't ask the same from your side either.
I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
I didn't say it was your question, you brought up government funding all on your own and then let me know you're not concerned about it. Ok, I'm just trying to roll with ya'. I think you're getting yourself confused.
yes he did, but the second part of the equation was to believe in AGW. Oh and it was Richard Muller.exactly, do you have a name of a scientist not funded by government money and agrees with AGW?nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.then why do I care if they are funded by the government or not? Sorry, don't understand your adventure down the rat hole.
I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
I didn't say it was your question, you brought up government funding all on your own and then let me know you're not concerned about it. Ok, I'm just trying to roll with ya'. I think you're getting yourself confused.
Sure, Koch funded Richard Mueller.
yes he did, but the second part of the equation was to believe in AGW. Oh and it was Richard Muller.exactly, do you have a name of a scientist not funded by government money and agrees with AGW?nor I and it wasn't my question. It is you that stated that qualified as the answer to which is loony tunes down a rat hole.I don' know why you would care if they are funded by the government or not, I'm certainly not worried about it.
I didn't say it was your question, you brought up government funding all on your own and then let me know you're not concerned about it. Ok, I'm just trying to roll with ya'. I think you're getting yourself confused.
Sure, Koch funded Richard Mueller.
Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.
Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.
"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.
Scientists out weigh your opinion.
His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.
"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.
Scientists out weigh your opinion.
His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit."It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.
Scientists out weigh your opinion.
His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.Scientists out weigh your opinion.
His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.Scientists out weigh your opinion.
His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Where'd you get that? Link? Ever heard of polling zzzzzzzzzzz?And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
For professional climatologists who publish peer-reviewed pagers, 72 of 75 agree with the statement. As you can judge for yourself, that is about as clear a consensus as can be reached among scientists who are incredibly independent and cautious about agreeing to something so general.
Wow! 72/75, that's almost every scientist in the world!!!
Was Franco stupid before his Mom dropped him on his head?
Maybe we should ask 75 people?
And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Silly Billy has provided us with enough humor concerning science that we well know his opinions are not worth shit.His are not worth s**t, but yours are ?
I can't get enough of this.
Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
Tell me, if your handed a turd do you throw it out and ask for real food or do you gobble it up? Misrepresenting the positions of other scientists is the game these fools play and that is not ethical.
Where'd you get that? Link? Ever heard of polling zzzzzzzzzzz?And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
For professional climatologists who publish peer-reviewed pagers, 72 of 75 agree with the statement. As you can judge for yourself, that is about as clear a consensus as can be reached among scientists who are incredibly independent and cautious about agreeing to something so general.
Wow! 72/75, that's almost every scientist in the world!!!
Was Franco stupid before his Mom dropped him on his head?
Maybe we should ask 75 people?
Where'd you get that? Link? Ever heard of polling zzzzzzzzzzz?And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...Of course...you are part of the far left.
Nobody's opinion or view of scientific results matters.....but yours.
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
For professional climatologists who publish peer-reviewed pagers, 72 of 75 agree with the statement. As you can judge for yourself, that is about as clear a consensus as can be reached among scientists who are incredibly independent and cautious about agreeing to something so general.
Wow! 72/75, that's almost every scientist in the world!!!
Was Franco stupid before his Mom dropped him on his head?
Maybe we should ask 75 people?
