Who are these "scientists" that deny climate change is man made again? If anyone can find one that's not a right wing christian or takes a check from an oil lobbyist,...I'll take a picture and show you my wifes big beautiful tits.
Well rehearsed talking points, tell you what I'll do.....I'll send you some food, you must be hungry and cold occupying those birds out there, and pull the tin foil hat over your ears, its cold tonight.
I posted in one of the other climate change threads a study from the largest association of climatologists
The wanted to investigate the rift of perception among climatologists.
As a baseline they polled the various branches of science getting conclusive evidence across the board that all sciences where seeing the same phenomenon. Global warming.
They then polled all their members (climate scientists) and found the criteria for the rift in their perceptions was not data from the other branches of science, but religious, political and other affiliations.
Scientists can be biased by data that has no bearing in a scientific analysis, imagine how this pans out for stoners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#
Odd how the reality of what Phil Jones said is different than the reality Ununionized thinks he lives in.
You only need bother yourself with the part where he gets paid to tell the truth about that instrumental record.
His beliefs are only of importance if they reflect reality, and they don't.
The world can't have cooled and warmed.
It's double talk.
...
In 2013, global CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use were 36 gigatonnes.
That's 36 billion tonnes.
In 2013, global CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use were 36 gigatonnes.
That's 36 billion tonnes.
What rational being, knowing this, would deny human actions are
directly causing rising global CO2 emissions?
And that rising global CO2 emissions will cause climate change.
morans
actually, the world can and does warm and cool
it's a bunmpy ride out there, it's warming and cooling over small spans of time
that's all perefctly normal
but where he 'admits' to lying, that's not apparent at all
yours is a mischaracterization of a nuanced discussion of climate
which is rather complicated
Well - I'd like to know the nuances of that discussion you share with me, so I'll know more when we're done; since I'm an atmospheric chemistry and energy professional with 42 years' experience analyzing atmospheric chemistry, and 26 or so, analyzing atmospheric radiation thermodynamics.
...
it's quite simple
choose the interval of time that you want, and it's not hard to show warming/cooling/steady state conditions
global warming skeptics use this method quite regularly
for example, you've chose the start point of 1998(or so) to the present time(presumably)
this time period showed very modest global warming, until recently since the last 2 years have been record setters
but it's all lies, so what does it matter?