Top Comments
All Comments (17)
-
reference?
-
This language isn't necessary.
I am trying to research the matter scientifically, instead of following one cult or the other.
And thanks for the pointer. I'll look at it.
-
Shut up hippy.
-
i hate BRAINWASHED fukheads like u mF
-
then watch "global warming swindle DEBATE pt1" and pt2
then feel like a SUCKER for OIL, IDIOT
-
In any case, "relevance" to climatology is subjective. They said that UPENN guy had the "relevant training", when he did law. That guy from the University of Colorado (or something, who was famous for stating that ice caps were melting) had a degree in ARTS and ENGLISH and NOTHING ELSE. Even then, the environmental organizations gave him credit for "relevant training".
The gallup survey, totally unbiased (as it actually CHECKS if people had relevant training), provided my info. Nuff said.
-
Saying those are the facts does not prove it. Citing the facts to an unbiased source (ex. NOT A NEWSPAPER) proves factual accuracy.
My facts come from three sources:
Gallup . com
NOAA . gov
GISS.NASA . gov
Now please, go back up your sources.
In any case, I PERSONALLY know that few of the climatologists in the New York/Boston area agrees with human-caused global warming. They wrote articles about it on their respective websites.
@ Yale, Columbia, CUNY, MIT, Princeton
(Not just one).
-
98% of scientists with relevant training in climatology agree that climate change IS due to human causes. Those are the facts.
-
This is a joke, are they serious dont they know about the pole shifts. Oh yeah they do they just dont want us to know about it.
Global worming huh.
-
That "scientist" is a fucking hippy. I hate hippies.
Global warming is a money making lie.
struggle4all 3 years ago 3
Global Warning is just something for the Liberals to complain about so they can spend even more of our money. Yay for trying to make money a quick fix for everything! Everything is now worthless!
mastersniperjinx 3 years ago 2