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 rakes in loads of cash to keep babbling about GW, and its employees get to sell lots of books to suckers; so of course it has a vested interest in selling the rubbish. As 'scientists' they are no different than the scientists that were paid by tobacco companies to tell us all smoking was safe; they were paid to do so and they did.NASA is also a major player in climate change analysis and has been for years.
As 'scientists' they are no different than the scientists that were paid by tobacco companies to tell us all smoking was safe; they were paid to do so and they did.
That's an interesting topic! S. Fred Singer was one of those scientists paid by Big Tobacco to call into question the science of smoking and cancer linkage.
Ironically enough S. Fred Singer was also a well known skeptic of climate change science. Even found a way to dishonestly represent the work of a recently deceased scientist!
The lies flows easily now, this funding canard doesn't help you because you are too busy ignoring post one article.
That's an interesting topic! S. Fred Singer was one of those scientists paid by Big Tobacco to call into question the science of smoking and cancer linkage.
Ironically enough S. Fred Singer was also a well known skeptic of climate change science. Even found a way to dishonestly represent the work of a recently deceased scientist!
Funny you should say that. Siberia has now been experiencing various massive sinkholes as the permafrost there melts. First time in thousands upon thousands of years. Sometimes EXPLOSIVELY.
You know what comes out? CH4 (that's methane)
Methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere as CO2 but it is MANY TIMES MORE POWERFUL as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and has most of the world's experts on this topic a bit worried.
Enjoy!
Well, the science makes sense and there's absolutely no reason to doubt it except unless one has a bias against what the science says.
As you wish.
As it is for you as well. I might note since YOU are not an expert on this topic either YOU are, by definition, appealing to authority.
Just look at your mischaracterization of what NASA covers. You clearly know next to nothing about this topic.
Not as "conservative" as you might think. But then you don't actually have any connections to NOAA.
Sensationalism is bad. I will agree with that. It puts the science back on its heels because the ONLY thing you non-scientists notice is stuff that is in the popular press, rather than the science. So it tends to overhype something that is actually still a serious concern.
That's why I always suggest people read the SCIENCE.
Both. The popular press tends to overhype things but AGW is a serious concern.
Collapse of agricultural infrastructure. Economic destabilization. Billions of dollars lost on coastal disasters which may get more and more common. The shutdown of the AMOC in the North Atlantic and attendant economic collapse of most of our major trading partners' economies in western Europe.
That enough?
Decarbonization. Changes in land usage.
So, you want to spend trillions to prevent the loss of billions.
That's your position is it.
Hmmmmmmmm
I have. The pseudo science of climatology is a farce. It is untestable, unmeasurable, and defies the scientific method.
Sooooo, thousands of years ago the same thing happened.
So we are supposed to worry about it now....why?
Yes, he certainly knew all about how easy it is to find scientists who can be bought. Even today around 35% of scientific papers used fake data, according to some studies, so even 'peer review' has become a joke.
So no, Singer is just pointing out the norm, nothing interesting.
Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"Have you been through peer review? Yeah, I thought not. You don't know what you are talking about.
Actually Singer came really close to outright FRAUD in misrepresenting the views of a DEADMAN. He basically hounded Roger Revelle for the last year of his life and when Roger (who was dying) finally DID die Singer published and made it sound like Revelle had completely changed his view of AGW.
This angered the folks at Scripps Oceanograph so much (including Walter Munk, THe so-called "Einstein of the Ocean") that Singer was frozen out of any of the events honoring Revelle's memory.
If you think "fraud" is the norm and you are OK with it so long as it supports YOUR side then you are lost.
Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"
A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism
Have you been through peer review? Yeah, I thought not. You don't know what you are talking about.
Actually Singer came really close to outright FRAUD in misrepresenting the views of a DEADMAN. He basically hounded Roger Revelle for the last year of his life and when Roger (who was dying) finally DID die Singer published and made it sound like Revelle had completely changed his view of AGW.
This angered the folks at Scripps Oceanograph so much (including Walter Munk, THe so-called "Einstein of the Ocean") that Singer was frozen out of any of the events honoring Revelle's memory.
If you think "fraud" is the norm and you are OK with it so long as it supports YOUR side then you are lost.
I don't have a side, twitwad
, I know bullshit when I see it.
and I know fake numbers when I see them.
Too bad your education never got past 3rd grade and you can't tell the difference between advancing and receding ice ages and 'global warming', nor are you willing to say anything your peer group doesn't parrot.
"Twitwad"? That's novel.
That's doubtful.
LOL. Sorry it's unlikely.
That makes her an even more credible witness to the ongoing bias and bullying going on in the climate science community."Parkinson, who says she has never taken money from the fossil fuel industry, says she respects skeptical viewpoints but leans more toward the mainstream view. Given her analysis of the data, she concludes the Earth has, in general, warmed since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and that greenhouse gas emissions are at least partly to blame. " (emphasis added)
(ibid)
Wow. That was the most vague and least scientific description of the evolution of earth's climate I have ever heard.NOPE. A long time ago the climate changed due to natural forcings. This was long before humans showed up. That is how we know how NATURAL forcings work. We tried explaining the warming we are seeing now using those same natural forcings...and guess what? THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THE WARMING.
