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.
it's the peoples money funding the studies. There is no reason not to expect to show the work to prove the study to ensure we're getting what we paid for. You don't build a house without blueprints do you? Don't home purchasers review the blueprints before building the home? Come on dude, are you really that uninformed?Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
well if there is no wrong doing, what's the issue?Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
what does where the money come from have to do with anything? Are you saying the scientists should work for free? Then if that's the case, the scientist doing the study don't need our money eh? What a fnnn joke post.Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
well if there is no wrong doing, what's the issue?Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
then what's the issue? Provide the info Congress requested. Doesn't seem like rocket science.well if there is no wrong doing, what's the issue?Typical right wing tactic. Demand an investigation, and then look for something.....anything to manufacture another fake scandal. As long as they control the committees, they can release edited findings to support their manufactured scandal, just like Trey Goudy has been doing, and Issa did before him. One of the best reasons to kick these dishonorable republicans out at the next opportunity.
What are they hiding? We paid for it, we own it
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
That was the point I was making. There is no issue to investigate.
No reason to believe there has been any wrong doing, but lets look anyway. We might be able to manufacture some kind of scandal. Like I said Typical right wing tactic.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Congress asked and the rats play hide and seek. Yes how grown up of them.It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Congress asked and the rats play hide and seek. Yes how grown up of them.Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
what we need to be clear on is who pays those scientists salary and who they are accountable to. Let's start there.Congress asked and the rats play hide and seek. Yes how grown up of them.Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
We need to be clear on that. The anti science party in congress is wanting another witch hunt to discredit settled science.
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Scientists do not operate by consensus. Therefore, whatever you THINK the issue is that has been settled - there are 100s of them and they are NOT settled. Go look up Bray and von Storch.. ACTUAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists..On dozens of important debatable issues. Not some phoney partisan mind-reading project dealing with asinine questions that don't come anywhere NEAR the issues under debate. Most EVERYONE agrees that the climate changes and that we have been in a warming period. That's NOT what this investigation is about. And that's NOT what climate skeptics --- "deny"...
Your simplistic view of this continuing debate is just a vehicle for laziness it appears. And your lack of curiosity as to why the satellite/ground temperature records are suddenly diverging is something that you are truly NOT interested in.. You're just here to make this about oil companies and politics..
EVEN THO --- the main focus of controlling GHGases has been on FIXED sources of generating electricity. And like the typical leftist who only wants to fight about partisan stuff and doesn't know how things work ---- OIL has NEAR NOTHING to do with generating electricity..
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Scientists do not operate by consensus. Therefore, whatever you THINK the issue is that has been settled - there are 100s of them and they are NOT settled. Go look up Bray and von Storch.. ACTUAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists..On dozens of important debatable issues. Not some phoney partisan mind-reading project dealing with asinine questions that don't come anywhere NEAR the issues under debate. Most EVERYONE agrees that the climate changes and that we have been in a warming period. That's NOT what this investigation is about. And that's NOT what climate skeptics --- "deny"...
Your simplistic view of this continuing debate is just a vehicle for laziness it appears. And your lack of curiosity as to why the satellite/ground temperature records are suddenly diverging is something that you are truly NOT interested in.. You're just here to make this about oil companies and politics..
EVEN THO --- the main focus of controlling GHGases has been on FIXED sources of generating electricity. And like the typical leftist who only wants to fight about partisan stuff and doesn't know how things work ---- OIL has NEAR NOTHING to do with generating electricity..
The only reason you can call it a continuing debate is the same reason you can call Benghazi a continuing debate. All the facts have been repeatedly confirmed, but you want to keep stirring it for political purposes. If the right had any credibility left, perhaps more would care about your whining-du-jour , but you have turned into the little boy who cried wolf, and nobody with any sense will listen to you.
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Scientists do not operate by consensus. Therefore, whatever you THINK the issue is that has been settled - there are 100s of them and they are NOT settled. Go look up Bray and von Storch.. ACTUAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists..On dozens of important debatable issues. Not some phoney partisan mind-reading project dealing with asinine questions that don't come anywhere NEAR the issues under debate. Most EVERYONE agrees that the climate changes and that we have been in a warming period. That's NOT what this investigation is about. And that's NOT what climate skeptics --- "deny"...
Your simplistic view of this continuing debate is just a vehicle for laziness it appears. And your lack of curiosity as to why the satellite/ground temperature records are suddenly diverging is something that you are truly NOT interested in.. You're just here to make this about oil companies and politics..
EVEN THO --- the main focus of controlling GHGases has been on FIXED sources of generating electricity. And like the typical leftist who only wants to fight about partisan stuff and doesn't know how things work ---- OIL has NEAR NOTHING to do with generating electricity..
The only reason you can call it a continuing debate is the same reason you can call Benghazi a continuing debate. All the facts have been repeatedly confirmed, but you want to keep stirring it for political purposes. If the right had any credibility left, perhaps more would care about your whining-du-jour , but you have turned into the little boy who cried wolf, and nobody with any sense will listen to you.
Really??? All Solved?? Then of course you can give me a working number for the expected temperature in 2050. Right? And you can certainly explain why the satellite data shows no appreciable warming for the past 16 years or so.. RIGHT?? And of course you can explain why the USGS is "denying" that the California drought has no reasonable connection to GW. Right? Or the recent satellite surveys of the seasonal variations of CO2 concentrations are not quite what the early models expected. Right? Or how the "oceans ate all the warming for the past 16 years" when they have been "eating" heat at the same rate since the 60s. RIGHT?
You ain't even BEGUN to understand the debate or the issues on this topic. All you have is propaganda that's been spoon-fed to you. Bet you think we can say FOR CERTAIN that our little 0.5degC spike in temperature during your lifetime -- NEVER HAPPENED in the past 10,000 year history of the Earth.. RIGHT?
But you've already said that you don't care why the satellites no longer agree with the cooked results of 10,000 earth based thermometers prepared by politicized government agencies.
So I really don't expect a discussion here..
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Scientists do not operate by consensus. Therefore, whatever you THINK the issue is that has been settled - there are 100s of them and they are NOT settled. Go look up Bray and von Storch.. ACTUAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists..On dozens of important debatable issues. Not some phoney partisan mind-reading project dealing with asinine questions that don't come anywhere NEAR the issues under debate. Most EVERYONE agrees that the climate changes and that we have been in a warming period. That's NOT what this investigation is about. And that's NOT what climate skeptics --- "deny"...
Your simplistic view of this continuing debate is just a vehicle for laziness it appears. And your lack of curiosity as to why the satellite/ground temperature records are suddenly diverging is something that you are truly NOT interested in.. You're just here to make this about oil companies and politics..
EVEN THO --- the main focus of controlling GHGases has been on FIXED sources of generating electricity. And like the typical leftist who only wants to fight about partisan stuff and doesn't know how things work ---- OIL has NEAR NOTHING to do with generating electricity..
The only reason you can call it a continuing debate is the same reason you can call Benghazi a continuing debate. All the facts have been repeatedly confirmed, but you want to keep stirring it for political purposes. If the right had any credibility left, perhaps more would care about your whining-du-jour , but you have turned into the little boy who cried wolf, and nobody with any sense will listen to you.
Really??? All Solved?? Then of course you can give me a working number for the expected temperature in 2050. Right? And you can certainly explain why the satellite data shows no appreciable warming for the past 16 years or so.. RIGHT?? And of course you can explain why the USGS is "denying" that the California drought has no reasonable connection to GW. Right? Or the recent satellite surveys of the seasonal variations of CO2 concentrations are not quite what the early models expected. Right? Or how the "oceans ate all the warming for the past 16 years" when they have been "eating" heat at the same rate since the 60s. RIGHT?
You ain't even BEGUN to understand the debate or the issues on this topic. All you have is propaganda that's been spoon-fed to you. Bet you think we can say FOR CERTAIN that our little 0.5degC spike in temperature during your lifetime -- NEVER HAPPENED in the past 10,000 year history of the Earth.. RIGHT?
But you've already said that you don't care why the satellites no longer agree with the cooked results of 10,000 earth based thermometers prepared by politicized government agencies.
So I really don't expect a discussion here..
It's not like there's no evidence for tampering or juicing the temperature records. The ground data agreed BRILLIANTLY with the satellite data from 1979 UNTIL NOW --- when all of a sudden the temperatures were refusing to climb according to all the hysterical projections and failed models.
Aren't you curious why the SOLE KEEPER of most of the Earth's temperature data -- all of a sudden has a problem agreeing with the satellite data??
Not curious in the least. If the data is wrong, the majority of scientist will prove them wrong. So far, the only ones who are trying to prove them wrong are paid by oil companies or others who have direct financial interests.
Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Congress asked and the rats play hide and seek. Yes how grown up of them.Not true that all the folks who are skeptical about these fantastical recent temperature adjustments are "paid by oil companies". There's smoke and dopes on BOTH SIDES attempting to fog the debate.
But you go ahead and use that as an excuse to be ----- "Not curious in the least". Sure is a time-saver ain't it??
You could be partially right. Some of them might not be paid by oil companies, but just donate their time to a like minded political goal. When you get the majority of the scientific community on your side,get back with me.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
We need to be clear on that. The anti science party in congress is wanting another witch hunt to discredit settled science.
Majority of climate scientists DON'T agree that "the science is settled" and objectively trying to work. NOAA and NASA has PACKED their top exec positions with activist loudmouths like James Hansen. The guy who talked about boiling oceans and the "coal trains of death". His replacement is a similar activist who believes in "post-modern" science. That is essentially using science as a socio-political weapon..
When you do that as a political stunt --- expect to be monitored...
Still not curious why all of a sudden --- the ground data and NASA's OWN satellites don't agree??
Yes,The majority DO agree the science is settled. Just because a few can be paid to say differently doesn't out weigh the amount that agree. That is the same tactic that tobacco companies used when their product was proven to be dangerous. Hire scientists to introduce doubt.
Scientists do not operate by consensus. Therefore, whatever you THINK the issue is that has been settled - there are 100s of them and they are NOT settled. Go look up Bray and von Storch.. ACTUAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists..On dozens of important debatable issues. Not some phoney partisan mind-reading project dealing with asinine questions that don't come anywhere NEAR the issues under debate. Most EVERYONE agrees that the climate changes and that we have been in a warming period. That's NOT what this investigation is about. And that's NOT what climate skeptics --- "deny"...
Your simplistic view of this continuing debate is just a vehicle for laziness it appears. And your lack of curiosity as to why the satellite/ground temperature records are suddenly diverging is something that you are truly NOT interested in.. You're just here to make this about oil companies and politics..
EVEN THO --- the main focus of controlling GHGases has been on FIXED sources of generating electricity. And like the typical leftist who only wants to fight about partisan stuff and doesn't know how things work ---- OIL has NEAR NOTHING to do with generating electricity..
The only reason you can call it a continuing debate is the same reason you can call Benghazi a continuing debate. All the facts have been repeatedly confirmed, but you want to keep stirring it for political purposes. If the right had any credibility left, perhaps more would care about your whining-du-jour , but you have turned into the little boy who cried wolf, and nobody with any sense will listen to you.
Really??? All Solved?? Then of course you can give me a working number for the expected temperature in 2050. Right? And you can certainly explain why the satellite data shows no appreciable warming for the past 16 years or so.. RIGHT?? And of course you can explain why the USGS is "denying" that the California drought has no reasonable connection to GW. Right? Or the recent satellite surveys of the seasonal variations of CO2 concentrations are not quite what the early models expected. Right? Or how the "oceans ate all the warming for the past 16 years" when they have been "eating" heat at the same rate since the 60s. RIGHT?
You ain't even BEGUN to understand the debate or the issues on this topic. All you have is propaganda that's been spoon-fed to you. Bet you think we can say FOR CERTAIN that our little 0.5degC spike in temperature during your lifetime -- NEVER HAPPENED in the past 10,000 year history of the Earth.. RIGHT?
But you've already said that you don't care why the satellites no longer agree with the cooked results of 10,000 earth based thermometers prepared by politicized government agencies.
So I really don't expect a discussion here..
I find this discussion fascinating, because the left tries to change how scientific conclusion is reached! It is the new age folks! The era of Obama! If Obama says that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor and you can't,, YOU are a DENIER! He is correct, you are in error; just listen to these lefties here, you are not really seeing what you are seeing, lol!
How about...........we paid for the study, let us see it?!?!?!?! No, I am Obysmal, and I have to tell you that California is going under, I agree with Al Gore that everything is going under water, and it is all fossil fuels fault! Now I as your superstar President Obysmal, can NOT let out the whole study, because it would cause a panic. That is correct; I am protecting you; YOU are under a new form of Obysmal care known as PURPLE HAZE, and quit moaning our White House joints are causing global warming; it is YOU driving your cars to work!
Hey, if you don't quit bitching, I will have Lois Lerner audit you! I don't care if you paid for the study, you paid for all the illegals, and the welfare queens kids, and you can't get their social security numbers, nor deduct them either. Pay your FAIRSHARE! And buy an electric car too! Lets put all those coalminers, and oil rig workers out of business; they deserve it.
