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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
poor Frank.France's top weatherman sparks storm over book questioning climate change
the new religion, that you are forced to join
AGW Jihadists. Sick, sick anti-science people from the top down
do you have a life?Liberals call people bigots. It actually is defined as being intolerant of opposing "opinions". Not just race, gender, etc.
Yet...they are absolutely the most intolerant people on Earth when it comes to people having opinions that oppose theirs.
Bigots.
naw, bigots like you out yourselves and liberals merely take noticeLiberals call people bigots. It actually is defined as being intolerant of opposing "opinions". Not just race, gender, etc.
Yet...they are absolutely the most intolerant people on Earth when it comes to people having opinions that oppose theirs.
Bigots.
but he doesn't get to reject the basic science required by his job.
and according to Scientific American, the consensus is above 97%.
How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
which hasn't moved the political needle one iota because of people like the o/p and their representatives in congress.
no one has argued over the warming cycles except those trying to deny human involvement in speeding up and contributing to warmingNo, they say there has been no warming for the last 18 years which is factually correct. Global warming started 14,000 years ago and it has cooled and warmed since then. We are merely enjoying a warming period which, sadly, looks like it is coming to an end.
no one can deny we humans have been polluting the planet; the air, the water and seas, the land and even the atmosphere
to claim we play no part in any warming, any cooling, and anything involving our planet is silly. if the claims are made with the scientific methods and instruments and theoretical minds, I'll go with that. if the claims are made by lonely people on the world wide web with too much time on their hands, I'll take a pass
What a complete tool!but he doesn't get to reject the basic science required by his job.
and according to Scientific American, the consensus is above 97%.
How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
which hasn't moved the political needle one iota because of people like the o/p and their representatives in congress.
Could you show me wherein this diagram of the Scientific Method where consensus and Climate Change are?
Thanks, dear.
English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
Now take the pretty pills the nice nurse has for you, and toddle back to your nice room with the soft walls.It's alarming how dissent is being crushed and Leftist terrorists are inciting fear of daring to speak against the global warming cult. It's worse than the evolution cult ever was, and they were brutal against critics.
Europe is no longer part of Western Civilization. We alone are the last refuge for classical liberalism.
Of course you stick with it. You aren't smart enough to know for yourself.
lol.. you think you're smarter than the climate scientists.
no doubt your vast intellect and training gives you that right.
like I said... wacko.
The problem here is that you don't what climate actually SAY about what they know. You're getting INTERPRETATIONS of their work through an active propaganda channel linked to political aims.
For instance -- Bet you think that it's been PROVEN that the Earth climate was perfectly stable for the past 2000 or 10,000 years. Because of all the MIGHTS, COULDs and MAYBEs that you've heard being trumpeted about. But there is ample evidence of warm/cool episodes in man's recent past approaches approaching changes of a couple degrees. ALL BEFORE the industrial revolution..
You can continue the neener -- neener -- OR you can actually study what the climate science has stated. It's no harder than reading Scientific American actually.. Means a LOT of us are more than capable of understanding temperature charts, and proxy data, and the simple ass statistical preparation that goes into most of these "landmark" studies..
no. I know the right hates the idea that it isn't somehow G-d's will.
I figure G-d is pretty ok with men using what they learn to prevent tragedy.
and i'm really tired to the winger politicians listening to the zealots than following the science because it suits them to pander to the far right and enrich oil companies.
That's SO FAR from the expected answer to my post --- that I've got to assume you have ZERO interest in discussing or learning the science --- and just want to brawl.. I suggest that YOU may taking your position more "on faith" -- than any of the credible skeptics on this GW issue.
Taking things "on faith" is what you do when you parrot sound bytes from star scientists or rely SOLELY on phoney consensus concepts for your opinions of a valid scientific debate..
I don't think there's any debate on this subject. the "debate" is fabricated and science is what it is. we can talk "degrees" or what we can do... but dismissal of science? no. there isn't any debate there.
I think there was enough hot air in the Democrat presidential debate to reverse the recent cooling trend.yet most of your allies here have stated there is NO global warming.oh! he agrees the planet the globe has warmed up
Mr Verdier writes: “We are undoubtedly on a plateau in terms of warming
That's not in question silly boy, the question is cause.
as to the cause, man is playing a part.
the question is WHAT to do about it.
No, they say there has been no warming for the last 18 years which is factually correct. Global warming started 14,000 years ago and it has cooled and warmed since then. We are merely enjoying a warming period which, sadly, looks like it is coming to an end.
English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Like I've said before and you admit at times, your arguments are primarily ones of ideology and politicsEnglish language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Like I've said before and you admit at times, your arguments are primarily ones of ideology and politicsEnglish language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Most people outside the US believe in it.Didn't know it was in the weatherman job description to believe in climate change.
Already have. But as with the scientific consensus you just refuse to admit it is thereLike I've said before and you admit at times, your arguments are primarily ones of ideology and politicsEnglish language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
And AGAIN -- I challenge you to point out ANYTHING that is not a FACT in my post..
You're getting real tiresome to deal with -- what with your admitted disinterest in the science and then telling me what is ideology and what is science.
Do it --- show me the ideology and politics in that post..
Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Didn't one of those stupid ass Democrats blame the Syrian crisis on "Climate Change" last night in the so called debate?
I'd trust them before I'd trust the cultists who cling tenaciously to their computer models no matter how at variance with reality they may be.Sure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.English language usage: polluting not Pollution.Pollution is NOT a cause of Global Warming. That's a propaganda ploy to confuse pollution with CO2. If ya want to work on TRUE pollution --- I'll certainly agree there's work to be done.
verb versus noun
As far as agreeing on pollution, D'Oh! that is so very white of you.
When even scientists hired by Exxon agree the planet is warming and are asked how to figure this into future plans, and then Exxon tries to hide away part of the science on how and why the planet is warming -- Houston, we have a problem.
Exxon back in the 80s made more accurate predictions on temperatures changes than ANYTHING that ever came out of the UN IPCC or the GW propaganda mill.. And they NAILED the conclusion that the GW signature effect is and will be in the level of the noise created by natural climate change mechanisms. Emissions probably DO have a marginal effect on temp. But NOTHING like the scary doom predictions that have been pushed and AMPLIFIED to serve the political agenda of taking control of the world's energy policies and redistributing wealth from the rich countries to the poor..
Science they have funded has and that is what they have been trying to hideSure, EXXON will tell you the truth about climate change.
