Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.
Relying on models while ignoring monitoring is why the Chesapeake Bay is still in ruins. google it
The standard is a rigged game as climategate showed.
The study is available for review anytime the true believers care to dig into it.
Ok, I am an undergraduate environmental science student, and
Climategate was not a good look for the scientific community. However, It was not everyone. The root of all science is the ability to prove something is false. Why would anyone ever say something is settled?
Too busy reading published papers right now.
Seven investigations showed there was no climategate
And how many scientists do you think there are in the world?
The IPCC had over 3,000 authors and only about one in ten actually worked with the IPCC
There are hundreds of journals and they could not get it accepted by ONE??
Because they automatically dismiss any dissenting opinion like some in this thread are doing right now.
Seven bogus investigations conducted by other branches of the church. Seven foxes aquited the eighth fox for raiding the hen house.
The Guardian has done a masterful job
The definition of climategate. Thank you.
And the cult trashes another non believer with accusations that they are mere "deniers" and heretics to be burned at the stake.
I am actually working on a presentation on deforestation and biological processes. I can tell you that what you read in the media is not what is available in the scientific literature.
So why don't they present their findings to their peers? Dr. Christy is no amateur on the peer review process and he has many AGW-skeptical papers published so the ostracized argument doesn't work here.
It's so sad. An entire generation of folks who believe that the substance of their own lives is nothing more than pollution. And yet, we just can't get Al or so many of the other mouth pieces to just shut up already. Save the planet folks, stop talking and breathing........
When a so called paper uses phrases such as
sadder are those who do it know the difference between a research paper and a blog and who let Faux news do thief thinking for them
Interesting that instead of reading the study for yourself and forming your own opinion you ran to any source that would obviously do it's best to disavow the study. That pretty much says it all.
I didn't start this thread with any illusion that I would sway the opinion of true believers such as yourself. I started it for three reasons.
1: We are inundated with cult propoganda and it's good to get the opposition view out whenever possible so people with functioning minds could read it and get informed.
2: To point out that no it's not "settled science" and no not "all scientist agree".
3: There's still a bit if that little boy in me that used to sneak up on a hornet's nest and wack it with a stick and run off laughing as the angry hornet's swarmed out to defend their colony. LOL
Deforestation is a real issue with real consequences. Anyway to present your findings here?
Sure, it will be towards to end of the month.
Separate names with a comma.