You are not an honest or credible person. I don't get why you would possibly come to the conclusion that I would take what you say seriously, lol. Man made climate change is a fact. The only people who still don't believe it are crazy ass conservatives like yourself and Joe.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
LOL
Climatology isn't hard science.
Hard science (the scientific method) involves experiments where it is relatively easy to set up controlled variables and make objective measurements.
All the pseudo-sciences you believe in (Keynesian economics, Climate Fraud etc.) are like astrology: faith-based dogmatic cults with no hard evidence.
Note to the "Very, VERY Educated One": a survey or a petition of signatures aren't evidence or hard science, they are political bullshit.
And since when are people who measure weather patterns remotely accurate or reliable? Reliable enough to restructure entire sectors of the economy?
hno:Yes, certain weather technology is useful for tracking EXTREME weather patterns, like hurricanes...but beyond that, well...the only people with a worse track record than weathermen are Keynesian economists.
The fact that you continue to throw out dogmatic academic "surveys" as "evidence" that "the stimulus worked", or "climate change is real" (as opposed to hard data that can be scrutinized) is further proof that you are very much steeped in the cult of modern liberalism.
"The science is settled!!"
Bunch of fucking political hacks!
And since when are people who measure weather patterns remotely accurate or reliable? Reliable enough to restructure entire sectors of the economy?
Yes, certain weather technology is useful for tracking EXTREME weather patterns, like hurricanes...but beyond that, well...the only people with a worse track record than weathermen are Keynesian economists.
The fact that you continue to throw out dogmatic academic "surveys" as "evidence" that "the stimulus worked", or "climate change is real" (as opposed to hard data that can be scrutinized) is further proof that you are very much steeped in the cult of modern liberalism.
"The science is settled!!"
Bunch of fucking political hacks!
You're incredibly dumb, lol.
This is not "fact" and you really, really should stop repeating it.
Anyway, when I hear the know-nothing crowd start talking about 'consensus' I'm always reminded of this.
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
