You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really, why are all the admitted "I am not a scientist, but..." politicians listened to by anyone? If you are not a scientist, then you don't know anything about climate change ....
The article below, under review by Environmental Research Letters and submitted Jan. 9, 2015, appears with the consent of the journal’s editor. It critiques an article by Cook et al. [CEA] which describes the results of their survey of the peer-reviewed literature on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Their article is the basis for the widely believed “97% consensus” on AGW.
If the consensus were 97%, then if you read, say, 300 peer-reviewed articles you should find on average 9 that reject AGW. Instead, to find even a single rejecting article, you must read nearly 5,000. Try your hand at reviewing articles using a random selection of 300 here. You will quickly confirm that the true consensus on AGW cannot possibly be as low as 97%.
You have to be patient... the church didn't acknowledge Galileo's heliocentric evidence until 1992.... sometimes the obvious takes a little time...*sigh*
........ this is never going to end is it..... no matter how much evidence is gathered..... no matter how undeniable AGW becomes..... even when 100% of climate scientists agree...
I guess if we can have millions of Americans that honestly believe the earth is ~6000 years old I shouldn't be surprised that it's also possible for people to believe that adding significant quantities of a heat trapping gas somehow won't trap heat...
You have to be patient... the church didn't acknowledge Galileo's heliocentric evidence until 1992.... sometimes the obvious takes a little time...
you cannot deny that the earth's moving average temperature has been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age and the beginning of large scale increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. C'mon, man.
To be filed under "Examining the data"....LOL.... I just realized that the OP was in 2007!! Mods: We need a flag or something for really really old threads....
To be filed under "Examining the data"....
~2014:
The debate is far from over