• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Top scientist resigns "Global Warming a big scam"

Steve

Well-known member
Global warming terrorist found plotting next move.. thankfully the scientists living off the goverment teat managed to crack the case..
Hopefully they will figure out a way to put this bad actor on ice before he (possible a she) hits our shores.

The crack in an Antarctic ice shelf just grew by 11 miles. A break could be imminent.

An enormous rift in one of Antarctica's largest ice shelves grew dramatically over the past several weeks, and a chunk nearly the size of Delaware could break away within months

If this happens, it could accelerate a further breakup of the ice shelf, essentially removing a massive cork of ice that keeps some of Antarctica's glaciers from flowing into the ocean. The long term result, scientists project, could be to noticeably raise global sea levels by 10 centimeters, or almost four inches.

OMG,.. we are all going to drown.. this is horrible

oh wait...
However, other analyses have suggested that most of the ice that would be lost is so-called “passive ice” that does not play a key role in holding the glaciers behind the shelf in place. And some scientists have expressed skepticism about whether what’s happening at Larsen C is “cause for alarm.”

The floating ice shelf is fed by the flow of ice glaciers that sit above sea level on the Antarctic Peninsula. As the shelf shrinks, these glaciers could flow more quickly - which would contribute to rising sea levels. Losses from the ice shelf alone, however dramatic, would not have that effect, because the shelf is already floating on water, just like an ice cube in a glass of water.

oh, so the glass won't spill over if the ice melts?

Didn't Obama stop the rise of the oceans on day one?
(or was that one of those if you like your ice-shelf you can keep it statements? )
 

Tam

Well-known member
Can't remember what her name was but Tucker had a female Professor on one night and she said she had to quit her job at a US University when she started asking questions about the Science backing up Global Warming. She said the reason all the "STUDIES" prove there is global warming is that is what they are intended to do. Universities wanting Federal Grant money, have the conclusion of the study and look at only evidence to prove it, so they do not take a chance of not getting addition grants. . She said she saw the knives come out when she dared to question the studies findings so she felt her time would be better spent in an actual research lab looking at the evidence to find the answer not the other way around like the Universities are paid to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wed1xoB0fcM
 

Steve

Well-known member
Naulieretal2015b.jpg

In comparing the maximal temperature of the MWP with that of the Current Warm Period -- which comparison follows the approach used in the IPCC report -- Naulier et al. determined that the running 50-year averages between 1000 and 1100 were higher (+0.2 ± 0.1 °C) than the measured temperature of the last 50 years (1959-2009). This finding suggests, therefore, that there is nothing unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented about the current level of warmth in northeastern Canada, providing no proof for climate-alarmist claims in this part of the world that rising greenhouse gases are causing exceptional warmth. Furthermore, in discussing potential causes of change across their millennial temperature series, Naulier et al. report that their data suggest that "solar radiation was the most influential forcing on Tmax changes in the studied region," further noting that "low temperature periods were always associated to low solar radiation periods (p < 0.05)."
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V20/feb/a4.php

(sarcasm) Well as Canada hasn't changed while the arctic melts and drowns US, I can see you just don't care about the polar bears and little children who will get killed by rising sea water after the conservatives destroy any chance of an education they have. . (end sarcasm alert)




and it just keeps getting worse..
The 9-year major hurricane "drought" (2006-2014 inclusive), as the two researchers describe it, is without precedent in the historical record -- as documented by records archived in the National Hurricane Center's Hurricane Database (HURDAT) -- which extends all the way back to 1851, as described by Jarvinen et al. (1984). And this record reveals that the closest major hurricane drought to that of the present was the smaller 8-year record of 1861-1868.

In addition, Hall and Hereid employed a stochastic tropical cyclone model to calculate the mean waiting time between multi-year major hurricane droughts, finding that "the mean time to wait for a 9-year drought is 177 years." And so it would appear that if post-Little Ice Age warming has impacted land-falling U.S. hurricanes, it has done so in a most pleasant manner.

yep and when we don't get all that rain,.. we have, yep, you guessed it global warming caused drought..
see there is a way at looking at facts.. less land fall hurricanes and realizing that we have droughts, (sarcasm) isn't that proof enough of the devastating effects of global warming?
scientific formula that proves drought is caused by global warming and C)2
$ > -$ = ^Co2 > hurricanes = drought > hurricanes = (proof = Global warming proof)
I am not sure why mathematically challenged uneducated unsophisticated Trump supporters refuse to see the proof. (end sarcasm alert) The order of operations is just a bit different, :roll: :?
 
Top