Hundreds of Scientists Reject Global Warming

I've said it before-if you don't want a balanced and dispassionate view don't ask a climatologist.He's probably doing the job in the first place because he believes.His job, career and reputation are on the line.
It's all got to be theoretically based and it's not disputed that climate change is subject to many forces , some large some less powerful.These seem to work in cycles.It is therefore an extremely difficult background in which to determine causes of temperature change.
The climatologists cannot carry out the "crucial experiment" by removing all CO2 and getting humans to stop what they are doing so they can gauge the difference.All they can work on is correlation.
What I find annoying is the hyperbole employed The notion that recent warming has been at an unprecedented rate. It has not. The statements that it has been "the warmest on record" when records are barely 300 years ago and began in a little ice age.Records in any case were kept in only a few places on the planet until recently.In my opinion (as a genuine scientist well trained in the rigour of the scientific process) the argument for significant human contribution is not convincing.
 
I suspect hundreds or even thousands don't.:hatsoff:
 

ChefChiTown

The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
All well and good, but perhaps you are too busy with your dick (Phillip K - to give it it's full name) to have noticed that a mere 97% of the world's climatoligists are in the employ of Al Gore. (I seriously doubt that even you didn't notice, as they were all in the audience when he gave that speech in fluent Russian to the politburo. Sadly no video, only scratchy audio survives.) I know this, because unlike Al Gore I am not content to merely invent the internet. I use it to find out lots of things. Such as what's happening on the cutting edge of creation science and to stay abreast of things I need to remain rapture ready at all times.

...whaaaaat?
 
Top