US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
- Status
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Why do the vast majority of researchers who actively study global warming and climate change agree that ACC is real? I'm not talking about 'any scientist', I mean the people publishing the papers that other people are basing their research off of. Why are the overwhelming majority of field researchers agreeing that ACC is real? More coincidence? A massive worldwide conspiracy to falsify scientific data?
I always knew the Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences, the [URL='http://www.iasworld.org/']Islamic World Academy of Sciences, Cameroon Academy of Sciences, and the [URL='http://www.nationalacademies.org/nairobi/org/kenya.html']Kenya National Academy of Sciences were all in-on-it![/URL][/URL]
I always knew the Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences, the [URL='http://www.iasworld.org/']Islamic World Academy of Sciences, Cameroon Academy of Sciences, and the [URL='http://www.nationalacademies.org/nairobi/org/kenya.html']Kenya National Academy of Sciences were all in-on-it![/URL][/URL]
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
So 4000 out of 12000 is a vast majority? That's some Buck math there my friend.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
- Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
- Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]
- The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]
- The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
whereas 1 or 2 out of 12000+ come to your silly heartland institute conclusion.
by the way, did you read the NIPCC rebuttal to the latest IPCC report? not even they deny human contribution to increasing global temps, they just say it's a good thing.
that's how far back in the dust you flat earth society types are.
Al Gore was so sure of the human global warming control scheme he piggybacked and profited from.
He claimed the warming would raise sea levels to disastrous levels, so as an act of concern and sincerity, he bought a beachfront Mansion in California.
A front row seat of the theater of the new man made global religion.
He claimed the warming would raise sea levels to disastrous levels, so as an act of concern and sincerity, he bought a beachfront Mansion in California.
A front row seat of the theater of the new man made global religion.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I like you.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Does nothing to the strength of the ACC argument
Furthermore, Al Gore is not a scientist. Why do you people hold Al Gore up to some imaginary standard when even if he went 100% green and walked to work it wouldn't say anything about the strength of the ACC argument?
Can you accept that Al Gore has nothing at all to do with the overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
How do you measure the strength of the ACC argument?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
can you please point out when any of us have ever been a "disciple" of al gore?
sorry to destroy your flimsy strawman so easily. perhaps you might like to actually comment on the issue of anthropogenic global warming instead?
perhaps you would like to weigh in on what actual scientists (rather than al gore) have to say?
maybe even just tell us how much you love the heartland institute, and how there are no patterns or parallels between their paid defense of that harmless tobacco and their newfound paid defense of "anthropogenic global warming is good!".
ball is in your court, squirt.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the same way you would measure the strength of the evolution argument or any other argument: evidence.
Through the leaked emails of the infamous Michael Mann and his colleagues at the Ipcc discussing theatre"tricks"
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you know what "exonerated" means?
i'm sure the heartland institute is much more thorough and trustworthy in their methodology, by the way.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
I know what Bullshit is
you're swimming in it, samantha.
come back when you have more than al gore strawmen and exonerated non-scandals from fox news.
- Status
Similar threads
