just turned it off because of the climate change bullsh!t!
Yeah, how dare they! Only 97% of the scientific community agrees it's happening! How dare they silence the 3%!Me too. Just total nonsense. They are purporting this stuff as scientific fact.
Yeah, how dare they! Only 97% of the scientific community agrees it's happening! How dare they silence the 3%!
Yeah, how dare they! Only 97% of the scientific community agrees it's happening! How dare they silence the 3%!
If 97% agree on something then you should question it by sheer curiosity alone. 97% can't agree on jack shit.Yeah, how dare they! Only 97% of the scientific community agrees it's happening! How dare they silence the 3%!
Source??
It's also a fact that temperatures cycle regardless of human intervention.It's a fact the earth is getting warmer. The debate is why.
They were focusing on the polar ice melting due to it. Which again is a fact.
No politics here that I can see. If we can come up with a way to reverse it, we probably should or rio and Florida will end up under water.
Yes, 97% are funded by nut jobs who to spout this crap, namely politicians to get their agenda taken care of.Yeah, how dare they! Only 97% of the scientific community agrees it's happening! How dare they silence the 3%!
Good one. Let me ask you. Do you have a degree? If so, from where?97%! WTF?! grow a brain you mindless drone. Let me guess...you sucked on your transgender uncle's tits until you finally got some hair down there. Pathetic imbecile for a human.
And exactly what agenda is that? What does a politician have to gain from trying to stop climate change? On the contrary, politicians that OPPOSE climate change have much more to gain, as oil companies have deep pockets. Not sure many polar bears have contributed politically this cycle. But if you have evidence of Big Ice making large contributions, feel free to share.Yes, 97% are funded by nut jobs who to spout this crap, namely politicians to get their agenda taken care of.
And exactly what agenda is that? What does a politician have to gain from trying to stop climate change? On the contrary, politicians that OPPOSE climate change have much more to gain, as oil companies have deep pockets. Not sure many polar bears have contributed politically this cycle. But if you have evidence of Big Ice making large contributions, feel free to share.
I bet 97% of scientists agree the earth is round(ish) and orbits the sun. Should we question that?If 97% agree on something then you should question it by sheer curiosity alone. 97% can't agree on jack shit.
LMFAOOOOO97%! WTF?! grow a brain you mindless drone. Let me guess...you sucked on your transgender uncle's tits until you finally got some hair down there. Pathetic imbecile for a human.
James Inhofe. Big climate change skeptic. Top contributor? Oil and gas. $480,000 this cycle alone.Yes, 97% are funded by nut jobs who to spout this crap, namely politicians to get their agenda taken care of.
Not denying that. Brazil definitely has some real tangible problems they should tackly immediately.Maybe those scientist should clean up the sewage from rio and save those fish from that farbage floating in it. Much easier to accomplish and is a real problem. Not a scam to tax people
Why, yes, in fact I have several. Is that important to you? Does that somehow validate my opinion? Will it impress you? If so, you are pathetic. Would you like to know where I got my bachelor's degree and two advanced degrees and respective fields? Would you like to know which top instituitons they came from? I am happy to compare d!cks. Bet I come out on top.Good one. Let me ask you. Do you have a degree? If so, from where?
Climate change- Its called weather. I would love to know how the Ice Age was started by all that pollution from industrial smog back then. You probably think Obamacare is great for the country and business.I bet 97% of scientists agree the earth is round(ish) and orbits the sun. Should we question that?
You do realize that the climate has been changing for ever don't you? Ask yourself who is really profiting from all of this global warming crap. Check out Mr Al Gore's financial interest. The money for the research to find these "facts" is coming from companies that just so happen to be profiting the most. Many politicians have found a way to get rich off of it too.And exactly what agenda is that? What does a politician have to gain from trying to stop climate change? On the contrary, politicians that OPPOSE climate change have much more to gain, as oil companies have deep pockets. Not sure many polar bears have contributed politically this cycle. But if you have evidence of Big Ice making large contributions, feel free to share.
To quote the philosopher @Cris_Ard -- "Does this help us beat Florida State?"If we can come up with a way to reverse it, we probably should or rio and Florida will end up under water.
To quote the philosopher @Cris_Ard -- "Does this help us beat Florida State?"
It's a fact the earth is getting warmer. The debate is why.
They were focusing on the polar ice melting due to it. Which again is a fact.
No politics here that I can see. If we can come up with a way to reverse it, we probably should or rio and Florida will end up under water.
I couldn't have said it any better. Global warming is a shake down of the US taxpayers plain and simple.Ok, I'll play along. How, exactly, does taxing carbon dioxide emissions solve the problem? Assuming the hypothesis that climate change, which can mean anything mind you, is either caused by or exacerbated by the actions of humans, what exactly are we to do about it? Battery powered cars? Joke. Solar? Wind? Hydro? HA. What exactly is a cost effective solution? The only plausible solution to everyday electricity is nuclear, but that's been shot down by every liberal since 1976.
So I'll ask my question again. How does the government raising money fix the problem? Are they supposed to invest it in alternative research...already a failed endeavor. I'm all for a reasonable discussion/debate, but come to me when all of the raw data is released to the public. Until then, there is too much skin in the game to stop the "research" now.
I know and this comes while hosting country is destroying the rainforest...stay tuned Al Gire to appear later!just turned it off because of the climate change bullsh!t!
The major disadvantage of the method was that it did not necessarily produce a sample that was representative of the community of scientists involved in global climate change research.
That's 118 respondents representing 97%?By the end of January 1992, 118 questionnaires had been returned.
Oh.Since the sample cannot be considered representative of all scientists who work on issues related to global climate change, population estimates should not be made from this sample.
TIL the science community resides in the USThe 118 scientists who responded were largely North American. 91% were from the U.S.(98 respondents) or Canada (9 respondents).
Didnt answer the question.
Aha! Finally. Yes, the solution will not be 75 million acres of wind farms. It will be man altering the atmosphere further to reverse warming. Particulate. Get ready for the sunsets!It's a fact the earth is getting warmer. The debate is why.
They were focusing on the polar ice melting due to it. Which again is a fact.
No politics here that I can see. If we can come up with a way to reverse it, we probably should or rio and Florida will end up under water.
First of all, degree wise, I bet not. Second of all, dick wise, I also bet not. The only thing pathetic here is your intollerance for science. I feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with the drivel your spew.Why, yes, in fact I have several. Is that important to you? Does that somehow validate my opinion? Will it impress you? If so, you are pathetic. Would you like to know where I got my bachelor's degree and two advanced degrees and respective fields? Would you like to know which top instituitons they came from? I am happy to compare d!cks. Bet I come out on top.