Although I doubt you will understand what it says and will continue to follow sheep like the right wing bloggers you parrot.
where as I can read and understand a scientific report, I am also intelligent enough to realise that there are experts who know far more about this subject than I do and that when they reach a consensus it is worth taking them seriously.
As I pointed out you don't have the scientific knowledge to reject this report for scientific reasons, therefore you reject it because you don't like the policy formulated to deal with the problem. By rejecting well founded science instead of coming up with your own political solutions you show you politics to be moribund- devoid of ideas and therefore pointless in teh modern world
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Although I doubt you will understand what it says and will continue to follow sheep like the right wing bloggers you parrot.
where as I can read and understand a scientific report, I am also intelligent enough to realise that there are experts who know far more about this subject than I do and that when they reach a consensus it is worth taking them seriously.
As I pointed out you don't have the scientific knowledge to reject this report for scientific reasons, therefore you reject it because you don't like the policy formulated to deal with the problem. By rejecting well founded science instead of coming up with your own political solutions you show you politics to be moribund- devoid of ideas and therefore pointless in teh modern world
The IPCC is a political organization.
If you have a point to make, feel free. I'm not going to read an entire report from a group of leftist bureaucrats.
To get a green Greenland you have to go back well before the dawn of Man, about a half a million years.
But the earth is only 6,000 years old? This is crazy talk.
__________________ "So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed -- if you listen to the rabble rousers -- by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United States to kill Sarah Palin's baby. " Bill Moyers.
To get a green Greenland you have to go back well before the dawn of Man, about a half a million years.
Doe sit really matter when it was, the fact remains that there have been time periods during which the Earth was MUCH warmer than it is now and said warming periods were most definitely not man caused.
The fact that the Earth is arguably warmer now than at any time in human history is hardly proof that humans are the primary cause of warming, especially since the beginning of anything resembling decent climate records was an abnormally cool time.
To get a green Greenland you have to go back well before the dawn of Man, about a half a million years.
Data from ice cores indicate that between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.[citation needed]
These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and 15th centuries, likely due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit.[8] The condition of human bones from this period indicates that the Norse population was malnourished, probably because of soil erosion resulting from the Norsemen's destruction of natural ve
Data from ice cores indicate that between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.[citation needed]
These Icelandic settlements vanished during the 14th and 15th centuries, likely due to famine and increasing conflicts with the Inuit.[8] The condition of human bones from this period indicates that the Norse population was malnourished, probably because of soil erosion resulting from the Norsemen's destruction of natural vegetation to allow for farming, turf-cutting, and wood-cutting, because of a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and because of armed conflicts with the Inuit.[7] getation to allow for farming, turf-cutting, and wood-cutting, because of a decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age, and because of armed conflicts with the Inuit.[7]
Another irony meter bites the dust as someone with zero scientific credibility and education complains of others being uneducated
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Not that it matters, but I have a BS in Chemistry and and an MBA.
Even a high school grad should be able to read a graph, however.
You are so indoctrinated that you can't accept facts that expose your opinions as flawed.
Where did you get your education?
Someone with a BSc should have the basic scientific education to understand climatology, and yet you show absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever.
I'd be ashamed to be a trained scientist and come out with the stuff that you parrot straight off right wing blogs.
Have you ever thought of putting all that education to some use and thinking for yourself?
Someone with an high school education in science and the basic facts should be able to understand why the graph you show is fraudulent, it has also been explained to you a number of times.
Your inability to grasp that shows that either your "education" was a waste of time or your hatred of anything you perceive to be left wing - although how climatology can be left wing is beyond me - is so all consuming it has clouded any scientific judgement you ever had.
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Someone with a BSc should have the basic scientific education to understand climatology, and yet you show absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever.
I'd be ashamed to be a trained scientist and come out with the stuff that you parrot straight off right wing blogs.
Have you ever thought of putting all that education to some use and thinking for yourself?
Someone with an high school education in science and the basic facts should be able to understand why the graph you show is fraudulent, it has also been explained to you a number of times.
Your inability to grasp that shows that either your "education" was a waste of time or your hatred of anything you perceive to be left wing - although how climatology can be left wing is beyond me - is so all consuming it has clouded any scientific judgement you ever had.
Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.
The graphs I've provided are accurate and sourced. Feel free to explain why the data is irrelevant.
Linear Mode
