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.
One point I can make now, is that the author could send ask each scientist personally, what he thinks, but that is not done. You will produce one man's opinion, maybe two or three, but you will not find a consensus.
but, give it a try, others have, and failed,
Cartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.You posted a cartoon, and a colored drawing, as science.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change doubters really aren't going to like this studyCartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.
The Guardian? Not a study. Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level. No link to a link to a link, produce studies.Your post here by the way is "Real science " Tee hee ...it has yellow color photos of pagesJump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.
Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950
Headlines from the Washington Post, is not a study?Climate change doubters really aren't going to like this studyCartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.
Researchers have designed an inventive test suggesting that the arguments commonly used by climate change contrarians don’t add up, not only according to climate scientists (we know what they think already) but also in the view of unbiased experts from other fields.
Post something that demonstrates that you are wiser than science ...not this kind of tripe LOL...below is a sample from your post on Climate LOLCut to the chase,.
The Guardian? Not a study. Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level. No link to a link to a link, produce studies.
Yes, I am using a book as a reference, not Google. 695 pages. How many pages does your Google'd found article from the Washington post, reference.Your post here by the way is "Real science " Tee hee ...it has yellow color photos of pagesJump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.
Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950
Elektra is a record label, I am guy, I got balls, it is the ignorant and stooges who assume otherwise.Here is the kicker quote from this creature Elektra
"...Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level..."
In other words this "Jaboony" Believes she is on a "Scholarly Level"
"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."
Wrong again, that post had nothing to do with Climate, it contradicts a contention Old Crock made, which was in response to my post in which I stated, "Scientists disagreed with plate tectonics and decades later were proved wrong".Post something that demonstrates that you are wiser than science ...not this kind of tripe LOL...below is a sample from your post on Climate LOLCut to the chase,.
"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."
how can that be when their satellites failed? DOH!cause you all keep saying it. you have no evidence that the arctic has been warmer. The average temp is 27 degree F. So?I still can't figure out how ice melts under 29 degrees F.Nope, its getting thicker, I posted the story and the link, I can go back and get it.The Antarctic is doing the same thing. Yes, it's "growing", it's growing in the sense that there's less ice there too.
There might not be details of how many times polar bears fart in the Arctic, however, like I said, what you've said (and which you seem to have decided to not talk about in this post) is not actually true.
You're making claims which are not based on logic.
You're saying that because the Arctic ice is spread over a larger space, that this somehow means that global warming isn't happening.
Would you like to change your view now?
Why do you think there is ice melting under 29 degrees F?
No evidence the arctic is warmer?
Sea ice area is lower, hotter temperatures, lower sea ice.
Oh, NASA sees temperatures rising.
The UAH sees them rising.
And some more
they lie.That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGWOf course there are those who are arrogant and think they are smart enough to understand complex hypothesis, or even more complex theories, simply because they go outside on a warm day and arrogantly think that confirms their understanding.Well, the problem is some people just act like science should be easy enough for them to understand, and if they can't understand it, they reject it.
Nice observation of yours, although a bit shallow.
Lie to get more political money is moronic. And I didn't need to increase font size or bold the text. Wow.Coloring is for fools and the ignorant.YEAR IN THE RED
I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.
Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC
I call bullshit. Can't be proven and we all know that the data is adjusted. Tell me it isn't.Hey Fuck face did you go to the link and read the INFORMATION in TEXT..Go F Yourself IdiotYet, I did not reject science, I pointed out how a colored picture is for the fools and ignorant, it was pretty, did you use crayolas or did you copy it from a google search?Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC
here is an example
We are breaking records by 3 to 4 tenths of degree C, whereas even the largest El Niños... only boost global temperatures by 1 to 2 tenths of a degree C,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post in an email. “Even neglecting the possibility that climate change itself is leading to more monster El Niños... El Niño cannot explain the majority of this record warmth. Climate change is clearly playing a key role in the record warmth.”
We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
not sure what any of that proves other than you know where colored pictures are at on the internet. It certainly does not prove AGW or that any of it is factual.Incredible I put up a link with all kinds of Information and all this creepy snide Individual has to say is that it has a "Colored picture " and therefore its for "fools and ignorant" followed by rather pathetic snark fail...Are these fuckers on Drugs or something ?LOLYet, I did not reject science, I pointed out how a colored picture is for the fools and ignorant, it was pretty, did you use crayolas or did you copy it from a google search?Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC
Repeating your opinions on climate over and over does not prove AGW is false.........not sure what any of that proves other than you know where colored pictures are at on the internet. It certainly does not prove AGW or that any of it is factual.
Only Truthers like you know reality NOAA NASA fakers you RealI call bullshit. Can't be proven and we all know that the data is adjusted. Tell me it isn't.
No you lie ...I trust NOAA and NASA more that I trust you...can anyone blame me ?That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW
they lie.
