You mean the growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”? Let’s watch how the environmental movement treats THOSE heretics.
You can “conclude” whatever you’d like, my scientifically illiterate friend. I feel no need to prove my intellect against the likes of you. You’re no threat.
What growing crowd? The guys who have absolutely no credentials in environmental science, or the guys being paid by Exxon to say that a spoonful of oil every day gives animals glossy fur?
As what you say here demonstrates that there is no chance for you to ever make a paper on climate that will change the current consensus, I can say that I’m the one with the evidence that you are 100% harmless.
You are just proposing stupid opinions that are not being treated seriously by science.
Anyone else amused by the spittle-flecked conservative quoting Freud to back up his arguments? I mean, if his politics are going to be outmoded and thoroughly disproven, why not his psychology, too?
I haven’t proposed anything yet. What are you talking about? My Freud allusions? They were just something to chew on. I’m not talking science. I also wrote down a list of alternative fuels I support. That’s the extent of my “proposals” so far on this site, so I really have no idea what you are talking about.
What arguments? Dude, I’m just having fun and throwing a few things out there. When I start to argue, you’ll know it.
Oh, and of course every leftist worth his copy of the New Yorker knows that consevative ideas have been completely disproven, right? :rolleyes: I think the study disproving them appeared in The Nation. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
www.climatedebatedaily.com has no agenda. It’s not pro- or anti- climate change. It’s an aggregator site that pulls together news stories and science stories from all sources.
When you affirm that there is a “growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus””
The “growing” part is the false part.
History shows that it took awhile to find all the evidence that convinced the majority of scientific organizations that AGW was real. It is the skeptics who are shrinking.
I’ll stick to what I originally proposed. I don’t feel it would be too difficult to prove whether I was right or wrong. I used plain language and small words everyone should understand. Even you.
An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal is hardly convincing.
Laying aside the fact that nobody else uses that definition: And you think fossil fuels aren’t commonly used today? Also, why don’t wind, solar, geothermal, etc., count?
As the problems cited are well within the bounds of ordinary scientific criticism, they don’t raise any red flags. Far worse allegations fly between scientists in the second-hand smoke, trans fat, or bovine hormone issues.
If the “problems” mentioned cause you to be soured on Pielke, move on. There are hundreds of other articles on the website.
Good luck, btw, in finding a scientist on either side of the debate that the other side has NO problems with. i.e. both their methodology and their conclusions are accepted without comment.
I could post links to 10 other articles saying the same thing. Must I?
If you have any curiosity whatsoever, you’ll check out my allegations for yourself and find me to be correct.
…btw if you find any evidence that scientists are falling into line, that the ranks of skeptics are shrinking, that the debate is over, etc…please post them. I’d love to read them.
I’m fairly confident you won’t.
Wind, solar, geothermal, etc cannot fulfil our power needs now and certainly not in the future. If you have any articles saying they can, please post them. Of course, these articles should be written by reputable scientists and explain HOW these fuels will meet our current projected power needs.
I’m fairly confident you won’t.
Why don’t they “count”? Because they’re pipe dreams.
As you ignored the research by Naomi Oreskes, you do demonstrate ignorance when you ignore that we need peer reviewed documents to support your position, otherwise… Well, you are as harmless as a dodo.