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.
WSJ's shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus is not a mythLink...link....link97% has been debunked more times than Lizzy Cheekbones fake Cherokee ancestory
Popular Technology.net 97 Study Falsely Classifies Scientists Papers according to the scientists that published them
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ
You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
strawman and not anything about the OP, post should be deleted. Give us the science that proves the point and the list of scientists and the questions they answered. If you can't, you've failed.The same guy denying climate change denies that tobacco smoking is a health hazard...how scientific of the dude L:OL
I don't need to. I don't make any claim of doom and gloom. The science isn't proven, never has. Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
Link something scientific will you sailor boy repeating your goofy opinions is not scientificstrawman and not anything about the OP, post should be deleted. Give us the science that proves the point and the list of scientists and the questions they answered. If you can't, you've failed.The same guy denying climate change denies that tobacco smoking is a health hazard...how scientific of the dude L:OL
You make the claim scientific consensus is wrong and you are right ...show some proofI don't need to. I don't make any claim of doom and gloom. The science isn't proven, never has. Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
I don't need to. I don't make any claim of doom and gloom. The science isn't proven, never has. Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
did you even read what you posted? 26.3% responded. 26.3 freaking %. Sorry pal but you fail again.Heartland Institute reprimanded
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
November 27, 2013 ·
by Keith L. Seitter, AMS Executive Director
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.
If you got this Heartland Institute e-mail, or if you have read articles or blog posts related to this study, my suggestion is simple. Rather than take someone else’s interpretation of the survey results, read the paper yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is freely available here as an Early Online Release.
A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate. This survey was conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity on an important topic and the results are published for all to see. This is the way science is meant to work.
I think your post should be deleted as being unscientific nonsenseI don't need to. I don't make any claim of doom and gloom. The science isn't proven, never has. Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
hahahahahaha still no science. Right, every post I post on yours should be deleted as well. They are irrelevant to the OP. You have violated the rules of the forum and I am calling you on it. I was instructed to do so.You make the claim scientific consensus is wrong and you are right ...show some proofI don't need to. I don't make any claim of doom and gloom. The science isn't proven, never has. Consensus, you can't prove, because you don't know what they're even talking about.You have been posting scientific links ? NOTWow, you know how to move around on the internet and post up funny pictures. Still isn't science pal!!!! If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
has nothing to do with tobacco, irrelevant again. still not a post directed at the OP.Tobacco Industry Apologist
In prior work for the tobacco industry,Joe Bast"staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes.Naturewrites, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases."
You did not read it pal ..you fail they say what was attributed to them is not sodid you even read what you posted? 26.3% responded. 26.3 freaking %. Sorry pal but you fail again.Heartland Institute reprimanded
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
November 27, 2013 ·
by Keith L. Seitter, AMS Executive Director
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.
If you got this Heartland Institute e-mail, or if you have read articles or blog posts related to this study, my suggestion is simple. Rather than take someone else’s interpretation of the survey results, read the paper yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is freely available here as an Early Online Release.
A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate. This survey was conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity on an important topic and the results are published for all to see. This is the way science is meant to work.
pretty picture, has absolutely no value to any discussion. Still waiting on that list of scientists and the questions.
so if a witness is impeached due to prior nonsense and lies he still get to keep credibility ? in wing nut world ...has nothing to do with tobacco, irrelevant again. still not a post directed at the OP.Tobacco Industry Apologist
In prior work for the tobacco industry,Joe Bast"staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes.Naturewrites, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases."
Your nonsense I use to send out more infopretty picture, has absolutely no value to any discussion. Still waiting on that list of scientists and the questions.
dude, 26.3% responded. You realize what that means right? 73.7 didn't agree.You did not read it pal ..you fail they say what was attributed to them is not sodid you even read what you posted? 26.3% responded. 26.3 freaking %. Sorry pal but you fail again.Heartland Institute reprimanded
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
Going to the Source for Accurate Information
November 27, 2013 ·
by Keith L. Seitter, AMS Executive Director
Earlier this week, the Heartland Institute appears to have sent an extensive e-mail blast with what is more or less a press release for a paper that will appear in an upcoming issue of BAMS entitled “Meteorologists’ Views about Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members” (in full disclosure, I am a coauthor on this paper). A disturbing aspect of this e-mail is that it seems some effort was placed in making it appear to have been sent by AMS. It was sent from an e-mail account with AMS in the name (though not from the “ametsoc.org” domain) and featured the AMS logo prominently (used without permission from AMS). Only in the fine print at the bottom was it clear that this apparently came from the Heartland Institute. The text of the e-mail reports results from the study far differently than I would, leaving an impression that is at odds with how I would characterize those results.
If you got this Heartland Institute e-mail, or if you have read articles or blog posts related to this study, my suggestion is simple. Rather than take someone else’s interpretation of the survey results, read the paper yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is freely available here as an Early Online Release.
A difference between the AMS and some organizations is the transparency and scientific integrity with which we operate. This survey was conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity on an important topic and the results are published for all to see. This is the way science is meant to work.
irrelevant and is apples to oranges and still not a response to the OP.so if a witness is impeached due to prior nonsense and lies he still get to keep credibility ? in wing nut world ...has nothing to do with tobacco, irrelevant again. still not a post directed at the OP.Tobacco Industry Apologist
In prior work for the tobacco industry,Joe Bast"staunchly defended 'Joe Camel'," the mascot for Camel cigarettes.Naturewrites, "He is among the last public defenders of smoking and has argued that concerns about second-hand smoke are as bogus as those surrounding greenhouse gases."
