EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:30 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1274 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 85  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/climate-change-and-global-warming-the-big-lie/

Quote:
The climate scam depends on fake temperature data, rewriting history, hiding the past, using flawed logic, and constantly lying to the public – day in and day out.


Yep. Pretty much sums it all up. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


They misquoted it:

The climate change opposition scam depends on fake temperature data, rewriting history, hiding the past, using flawed logic, and constantly lying to the public – day in and day out.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:55 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Excellent read fence sitters.

https://townhall.com/columnists/brucebi ... t-n2303208

Quote:
Let’s look at some of the facts and ask some questions:


Quote:
1. Climate Change Deniers – That is one of the statements I love to hear from supporters. It is itself an ad hominem attack since there really are not any of consequence. As previously discussed, the climate is always changing so the name in itself is quite silly. When discussing this with supporters I always ask why they keep using that term. The Climatologists that I have read or interviewed have been consistent. They state the climate is changing and add that man has some portion of that effect, but we just cannot prove the models that are used by climate change supporters to back up their claims of projecting out decades from now and man’s effect on the climate.

One would think if legitimate climate scientists come forth and state they cannot verify the models then others would question the models. But that is a no.


Quote:
2. Global Warming vs. Climate Change – When all this attention started to happen, it was referred to as “global warming.” Now it is “climate change.” Why the change in nomenclature? Try to get a coherent answer from supporters. That is not possible. I think it was because they were being brutalized because there had been a cooling trend from 1940 through the mid-70s.


Quote:
3. Discrediting Opponents – One of the things that brings into question the creditability of the supporters of this movement is their need to denigrate the people who express a non-conforming opinion. It starts with point one above, but there are multiple cases of scientists who varied from the orthodoxy who were attacked and belittled:


Fence sitters this one is relevant to what goes on here on this board.

Quote:
Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish Meteorologist, came out and questioned Global Warming in 2014. Fifteen days after he joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation he quit because he was being harassed. Bengtsson stated he had come under "an enormous group pressure. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."


Quote:
Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She recently quit her position fed up with the tribal nature of the climate-science community and the stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. This is just two examples, but if the strength of your case is there then why would you need to take actions against people like these to suppress legitimate questioning or peer review.


Quote:
4. Settled Science – Yes, gravity is settled science; this is not. The Theory of Relativity was something we lived with all our lives. Who does not know Einstein’s theory? We accepted it as is, but it was just recently proven. The entire idea of using this term questions the scientific basis of the arguments being made and is just another way to browbeat the opponents.


Quote:
5. Funding Sources – The supporters frequently question the veracity of the opponents because of their funding sources. The implication is that the scientists supporting the climate change orthodoxy are pure of heart and wallet. That could not be any further from the truth. They do their own back flips to receive funding and the creditability of their sources are just as questionable as the ones who don’t support the orthodoxy.


Quote:
6. Hottest Years on Record – I am sure you recently heard that 2016 was the hottest year on record. They will cite 16 of the 17 warmest years have been in this century. But did you know that the survey they cite goes back a total of 136 years. And the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t trust the temperature measurements done in the 19th century. In fact, I trust them very little until after 1950. Stating these are the hottest years on record means exactly what? And did you know that the increase last year, which was affected by El Nino, was .04 degrees Celsius. That means if everything continued on with similar increases it would take 25 years to increase one degree.


Quote:
7. The Climate Models – The scientists who question the orthodoxy of climate change often cite they cannot prove the models that are used by the supporters. But you don’t even need to be a famous climatologist to question this. Do you believe that these people can predict the weather at the end of this century – 83 years from now? La Nina was supposed to hit in Southern California in 2016. It appears to have shown up this year. They cannot even get that right. Yet they want to significantly reorient the energy sources in our society. And what happens 83 years from now if they are wrong – do they just say “sorry”?


Quote:
8. Rigged Numbers - The recent revelation by a whistleblower that the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided rigged numbers to the people behind the Paris Accord shocked everyone except for those who blindly believe all regarding climate change. This validated that the supporters have ulterior motives that drive their interests beyond good science.


Quote:
This isn’t to say that man has not had some effect on the atmosphere or that we are not going through a period of global warming. These are just some points to bring in to question the militant orthodoxy of the current climate change universe.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Excellent read fence sitters.

https://townhall.com/columnists/brucebi ... t-n2303208

Quote:
Let’s look at some of the facts and ask some questions:


Quote:
1. Climate Change Deniers – That is one of the statements I love to hear from supporters. It is itself an ad hominem attack since there really are not any of consequence. As previously discussed, the climate is always changing so the name in itself is quite silly. When discussing this with supporters I always ask why they keep using that term. The Climatologists that I have read or interviewed have been consistent. They state the climate is changing and add that man has some portion of that effect, but we just cannot prove the models that are used by climate change supporters to back up their claims of projecting out decades from now and man’s effect on the climate.

One would think if legitimate climate scientists come forth and state they cannot verify the models then others would question the models. But that is a no.


That is a apt description of those people who claim there is no change in the climate and/or there is no change attributed to the human caused increase in greenhouse gases.

Quote:
2. Global Warming vs. Climate Change – When all this attention started to happen, it was referred to as “global warming.” Now it is “climate change.” Why the change in nomenclature? Try to get a coherent answer from supporters. That is not possible. I think it was because they were being brutalized because there had been a cooling trend from 1940 through the mid-70s.


Someone must not listen as it has been clearly and often described. There are changes being brought about that are not directly temperature changes such as changing precipitation patterns, and the like. Climate change is a more correct description.

Quote:
3. Discrediting Opponents – One of the things that brings into question the creditability of the supporters of this movement is their need to denigrate the people who express a non-conforming opinion. It starts with point one above, but there are multiple cases of scientists who varied from the orthodoxy who were attacked and belittled:


When one ignores the science and/or presents misrepresentations of the science there is little else but to point out the loss of credibility as a result.

Quote:
Fence sitters this one is relevant to what goes on here on this board.

Quote:
Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish Meteorologist, came out and questioned Global Warming in 2014. Fifteen days after he joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation he quit because he was being harassed. Bengtsson stated he had come under "an enormous group pressure. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life."


So the position of ignoring the science made him believe he was being harassed? Was everyone else supposed to take his position for granted without supporting evidence?

Quote:
Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She recently quit her position fed up with the tribal nature of the climate-science community and the stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review. This is just two examples, but if the strength of your case is there then why would you need to take actions against people like these to suppress legitimate questioning or peer review.


I suppose that is why she writes those non-peer reviewed books for the denialist camp to purchase at a profit for her.

Quote:
4. Settled Science – Yes, gravity is settled science; this is not. The Theory of Relativity was something we lived with all our lives. Who does not know Einstein’s theory? We accepted it as is, but it was just recently proven. The entire idea of using this term questions the scientific basis of the arguments being made and is just another way to browbeat the opponents.


There requires a level of evidence to support his statement which seems to be lacking.

Quote:
5. Funding Sources – The supporters frequently question the veracity of the opponents because of their funding sources. The implication is that the scientists supporting the climate change orthodoxy are pure of heart and wallet. That could not be any further from the truth. They do their own back flips to receive funding and the creditability of their sources are just as questionable as the ones who don’t support the orthodoxy.


Really? The documents released from Exxon/Mobile would tend to refute this claim out of hand.

Quote:
6. Hottest Years on Record – I am sure you recently heard that 2016 was the hottest year on record. They will cite 16 of the 17 warmest years have been in this century. But did you know that the survey they cite goes back a total of 136 years. And the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I don’t know about you, but I really don’t trust the temperature measurements done in the 19th century. In fact, I trust them very little until after 1950. Stating these are the hottest years on record means exactly what? And did you know that the increase last year, which was affected by El Nino, was .04 degrees Celsius. That means if everything continued on with similar increases it would take 25 years to increase one degree.


The way the record is ignored and then used again as some point shows the total disregard for logic and the truth.

Quote:
7. The Climate Models – The scientists who question the orthodoxy of climate change often cite they cannot prove the models that are used by the supporters. But you don’t even need to be a famous climatologist to question this. Do you believe that these people can predict the weather at the end of this century – 83 years from now? La Nina was supposed to hit in Southern California in 2016. It appears to have shown up this year. They cannot even get that right. Yet they want to significantly reorient the energy sources in our society. And what happens 83 years from now if they are wrong – do they just say “sorry”?


So the confusion between weather and climate is supposed to make the point? It does show the level of ignorance/dishonesty of the statement.

Quote:
8. Rigged Numbers - The recent revelation by a whistleblower that the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided rigged numbers to the people behind the Paris Accord shocked everyone except for those who blindly believe all regarding climate change. This validated that the supporters have ulterior motives that drive their interests beyond good science.


The claims are so like a shotgun blast. Say everything is wrong in the hopes someone will believe some part of them ..... try some truth the next time.

Quote:
This isn’t to say that man has not had some effect on the atmosphere or that we are not going through a period of global warming. These are just some points to bring in to question the militant orthodoxy of the current climate change universe.


Sure delay any action so the companies involved can make more money because that is their whole concern. Just like the tobacco companies did in the 1960's and in fact the tobacco companies used some of the same scientists the climate deniers use now.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
What do you think fence sitters? Dr. Mann just can't help it.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/03/31/ ... falehoods/


Quote:
Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).
Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.


Quote:
[/quoteMann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.
“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.
To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”]

Quote:
Mann, in yet another bid to present himself as a persecuted martyr of anti-science Republicans, claimed that Joe Barton – the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – had demanded all his “personal emails and correspondence with other scientists.”
This, again, was a lie.
Barton had asked for Mann’s funding sources – which Mann, in his congressional testimony, said was fair game – but not for his personal emails.


The site also provides interesting tweets. Mann can't tell the truth in his research or before Congress. Got to protect that gravy train at all costs.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Fence sitters people today are so worried about sea level rise you can buy a beach front home in Miami for 65,000,000 dollars.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters people today are so worried about sea level rise you can buy a beach front home in Miami for 65,000,000 dollars.



Because the government subsidizes the flood insurance by an act of Congress. If the cost of insurance was charged correctly there would not be such a market at all.

http://business.time.com/2012/10/30/sho ... insurance/

But what many Americans may not know is that this $1.3 billion was a bill footed by the federal government, which underwrites the vast majority of flood insurance across the nation. Historically, insurance companies have been wary of offering flood insurance to homeowners because the risks associated with flood insurance are difficult to forecast, so any private insurance that had been offered was prohibitively expensive for average homeowners.

But in the 1960s, frequent flooding of the Mississippi River was driving up the costs of federal disaster-relief programs. In an effort to reduce these costs, Congress set up the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide flood insurance to the general public and promote effective floodplain management. Under the program, homeowners in certain areas of the U.S. are required to buy flood insurance, and communities that hope to benefit from the program have to enforce city-planning regulations set out by FEMA, which manages NFIP.



And when they tried to remove them:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/201 ... 2f88df4895

Real estate agents and others concerned about the impact of flood insurance rate increases on the housing recovery are lobbying lawmakers for relief.

And now, attorneys general from a growing number of states are banding together to fight the cost shift of insuring flood-zone properties from the National Flood Insurance Program to individual owners.

Even the congresswoman who co-sponsored the federal insurance reform act is crying foul.

“When I agreed to co-author this legislation, our goal was to create a bipartisan solution to repair our National Flood Insurance Program,” said Rep. Maxine Waters WAT +0.02% (D-Calif.). She added that “neither Democrats nor Republicans envisioned it would reap the kind of harm and heartache that may result from this law going into effect.”

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
How about it fence sitters. Are you okay with this?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/04/ ... e-deniers/

Quote:
Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.


Quote:
“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.


Oh yes. These tolerate, educated, smarter than everyone else who have nothing but the best intentions for mankind are starting up with the book burning. Yes that always ends well doesn't it.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
How about it fence sitters. Are you okay with this?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/04/ ... e-deniers/

Quote:
Three senior House Democrats asked U.S. teachers Monday to destroy a book written by climate scientists challenging the environmentalist view of global warming.

The Democrats were responding to a campaign by the conservative Heartland Institute copies of the 2015 book, “Why Climate Scientists Disagree About Global Warming” to about 200,000 science teachers. Democratic Reps. Bobby Scott of the Committee on Education, Raúl M. Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology all issued a statement telling teachers to trash the book.


Quote:
“Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda, and I encourage every teacher to toss these materials in the recycling bin,” Scott said. “If the Heartland Institute and other climate deniers want to push a false agenda on global warming, our nation’s schools are an inappropriate place to drive that agenda.”

The book’s three authors all hold doctorates and taught climate or related science at the university level. The book was written by former Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Craig D. Idso, James Cook University marine geology and paleontology professor Robert M. Carter, and University of Virginia environmental scientist Dr. Fred Singer.


Oh yes. These tolerate, educated, smarter than everyone else who have nothing but the best intentions for mankind are starting up with the book burning. Yes that always ends well doesn't it.


Perhaps the Flat Earth Society should send books to have that view taught in the science classrooms too? The same politicians supporting the anti-climate change view are supporting Creationism being taught in science classrooms too.

Milton, perhaps you should also educate yourself on the differences between "book burning" and "not using a book for education" and then you can work on harder subjects such as truth and science.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Rut row.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/06/ ... s-forward/

Quote:
There is good news in my lawsuit against the Climate Alarmism Enterprise – the Court set the trial schedule, thereby rejecting Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The jury trial in the civil lawsuit 5:16-cv-00211-C, Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al, pending before the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas, is set for October 1, 2018, in Lubbock, Texas.


Quote:
The lawsuit was initiated by a complaint, filed in September 2016, accusing the Climate Action Network (CAN), a political entity registered in Germany and headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon, and 39 other corporations and foundations, of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968). The defendants allegedly participated in the Climate Alarmism Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity including numerous acts of retaliation against witnesses, tampering with witnesses, bribery, and embezzlement from pension plans..


When you shine the light on the knuckle draggers fence sitters this is what you get.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:56 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Rut row.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/06/ ... s-forward/

Quote:
There is good news in my lawsuit against the Climate Alarmism Enterprise – the Court set the trial schedule, thereby rejecting Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The jury trial in the civil lawsuit 5:16-cv-00211-C, Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al, pending before the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas, is set for October 1, 2018, in Lubbock, Texas.


Quote:
The lawsuit was initiated by a complaint, filed in September 2016, accusing the Climate Action Network (CAN), a political entity registered in Germany and headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon, and 39 other corporations and foundations, of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”, 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968). The defendants allegedly participated in the Climate Alarmism Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity including numerous acts of retaliation against witnesses, tampering with witnesses, bribery, and embezzlement from pension plans..


When you shine the light on the knuckle draggers fence sitters this is what you get.


Allegations? That is something anyone can make without evidence even you, which we have seen quite often .....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:44 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Worth a look fence sitters.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKgazko ... e=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOTHBgaij7c

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:50 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:



Psssttttttttt ... the US is not the world, in fact it is a very small portion of the land mass ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/ ... s-failure/

Quote:
We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.

No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.

That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.


Quote:
From the Introduction:

The surface temperature of the Earth warmed more slowly over the period 1998–2012 than could be expected by examining either most model projections or the long-term warming trend1. Even though some studies now attribute the deviation from the long-term trend to observational biases17, 18, the gap between observations and models persists. The observed trend deviated by as much as −0.17 °C per decade from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5; ref. 19) ensemble-mean projection1—a gap two to four times the observed trend. The hiatus therefore continues to challenge climate science.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:55 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 10:46 am
Posts: 2
Though the forum is small but I already started seeing some interesting data in the thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21222
Location: Southeastern US
Betsy4ever wrote:
Though the forum is small but I already started seeing some interesting data in the thread


Hopefully not from Milton .... :- :lol:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1274 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 ... 85  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group