Man made climate change atheists COP15 is political church, not scientific
Uploader Comments (Daniel44125)
Top Comments
-
"All evidence shows there would be more precipitation in the atmosphere if there was warming. Not to mention areas that are cold and don't grow as well will be able to have longer seasons. I think you need to start thinking for yourself and get out of the alarmist mindset. "
I think you are the one who needs to start thinking for himself. I provided data that thoroughly refutes your claims and you provide me with a shill like Lindzen.
-
"Of course too intellectually impotent to understand what I was talking about."
Not intellectually impotent, just not willing to talk about a subject that has no bearing on the conversation. Of course, if we are going to bring food prices into a conversation about AGW then it should be to point out that the prices will be much higher in the years to come when there are many more deserts.
The CRU isn't the only research unit in the world studying climate.
All Comments (54)
-
@bofors7715 And there are plenty of videos debunking Monckton's pseudoscience. Not to mention the worldwide scientific consensus. These so called climate change skeptics are proposing valid arguments. They have been considered by the scientific majority but the science shows the real facts of AGW.
-
Carbon dioxide is food for plants, it is part of the elements of life. The more Carbon dioxide the greener the Earth. Down with the Carbon Nazis.
-
Watch videos by Lord Monckton for an excellent debunking of AGW.
-
AGW is absolutely not true. The planet has been cooling for past ten years, something similar happened between 1940 and 1960.
Furthermore increasing CO2, does not cause global warming, rather the opposite is true. CO2 is released from the world's oceans as they heat up. The heating is, of course, due to variations in the Sun.
The "evidence" that proves AGW is falsified. Climate scientists have been paid to cook the records and their computers models fail.
-
Doing good research does not make you a shill and there are plenty of climate scientists that support the consensus on AGW and do good research.
Lindzen on the other hand can't even get his denialist cohorts to support his work.
What some of the scientists who are not shills for the energy interests have to say about AGW.
ht tp : / / tinyurl . com / b6z83e
acidgawd999 2 years ago 3
They are shills for governments and the UN. Shills for GE which is a green energy company.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
@Daniel44125
They are doing their jobs as climate scientists. I doubt they are willing to work for free.
Who is a shill for GE and what evidence do you have of this?
acidgawd999 2 years ago 2
Yeah they wont work for free and as I stated money was a big driving factor. They can derive income from a college like Lindzen does. These are government shills. The biggest funder is government the US spent 70 billion on it. Nobody would want that cash cow to go away.
Daniel44125 2 years ago
I don't care if they are all shills. Taxes won't make things cooler and as I stated before its much cheaper to adjust over time as needed and allow the third world to grow economically. Starvation is a much bigger issue and it is here now and not based on a flawed theory
Daniel44125 2 years ago
See my last statement. It does not matter. Its not a crisis. The only ocean rising we will have is from the tears of you alarmist sheep.
Daniel44125 2 years ago