Time to stop using GOOGLE and to sell their stock?
ICECAP offers to debate the Google 21 scientists using the 18 points in our letter to the EPA signed by 35 scientists who are in the skeptic camp. Our choice of format. Their choice of time or place. Perhaps their June conference would be ideal. I am especially distressed to see the AMS involved in the Google effort. The formerly great professional society has become nothing but a public ploicy advocacy group for the liberal agenda.Shock News : The Most Important Greenhouse Gas Varies Between 30,000 ppm And 1,000 ppm | Real Science
If there is no movement or change, I will use other search engines and sell my google stock. You should consider the same. They have no business working to push an agenda and affect public policy. I won’t cancel my AMS membership, where I worked hard to achieve a CCM and Fellow designation, but attempt to work from within to oust the leadership and make the society advocates for good science not a political green agenda or public policy.
How can we ever stabilize the climate with water vapor concentration varying by so much from day to day and place to place? We are trying to fine tune CO2 within a few hundred ppm, while H2O is all over the map.'Stop Calling It Global Warming' People aren't buying it anymore - Minnesotans For Global Warming
Can’t someone in government bring all that water vapor under control?
While we shiver through another -20°C day, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who feels at this stage of the year that a little planetary warming would be a bad thing. With the exception of those that really enjoy snowmobiling and ice-fishing, a shorter winter would probably be seen as a good thing by many.Shock News : Human Breath Contains 40,000 ppm CO2 | Real Science
That is over 100 times the safe limit of 350 ppm. Call in the EPA and get all that breathing extinguished.Way back when climate scientists were scientists: Chapter 8, FAR, circa 1990 « JoNova
The “Attribution” Chapter is the part where they try to figure out what “caused” the warming. Chapter 8 says, essentially, “we don’t know, we might never know, our models don’t work, and we can conclude it might all be natural, but then again, it might not.” Got it?
This is in the same era that Al Gore was saying “the science is settled” and “there is no debate”.
Posts
1 comment:
I believe that the only way this 'climate change' issue is ever going to be resolved is by having the matter dragged into a Court of Law, where the judiciary would have to consider the evidence, or lack of it.
How this can be made to happen, I have no idea. But it seems clear to me that:
1. The model-based predictions of the IPCC can be readily debunked.
2. The supposition that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming can be readily debunked.
3. The idea that there is a massive consensus of scientists supporting the IPCC mantra can be readily debunked.
4. The idea that the IPCC AR4 report of 2007 is the gold standard in climate science can be readily debunked.
So how can we get this into a Court of Law where the real evidence can be examined?
Post a Comment