I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
Yet you think politicians don't have a vested monetary interest in keeping stupid people ignorant to the climate.
I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
Yet you think politicians don't have a vested monetary interest in keeping stupid people ignorant to the climate.
You don't get it, Republicans may be unilateral across the world in their denial of climate change, but ignore that and their campaign contributions, it's the climate scientists that are evil and corrupt.
I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
Yet you think politicians don't have a vested monetary interest in keeping stupid people ignorant to the climate.
You don't get it, Republicans may be unilateral across the world in their denial of climate change, but ignore that and their campaign contributions, it's the climate scientists that are evil and corrupt.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
I love science. That's why I know that anyone hinging an argument on consensus is fucking stupid.
I also know that calling for trillions of dollars to be spent with no return measurable by any science is even more fucking stupid
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
I love science. That's why I know that anyone hinging an argument on consensus is fucking stupid.
I also know that calling for trillions of dollars to be spent with no return measurable by any science is even more fucking stupid
I agree regarding consensus. We should always be challenging assumptions with advanced research.
I'm not sure how voluntarily spending on money on reducing carbon output is inherently bad though. There's probably a lot of scientific and economic advancement that could come from this.
I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
At UCSB I lived with Material Science PhD students for a few years, and those guys soul purpose was to find a way to make solar energy efficient enough to actually sell. They fudge the Science a lot to get grant money. True story.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
I love science. That's why I know that anyone hinging an argument on consensus is fucking stupid.
I also know that calling for trillions of dollars to be spent with no return measurable by any science is even more fucking stupid
I agree regarding consensus. We should always be challenging assumptions with advanced research.
I'm not sure how voluntarily spending on money on reducing carbon output is inherently bad though. There's probably a lot of scientific and economic advancement that could come from this.
Voluntary is great and nothing Trump has done will stop that
But that doesn't get votes from the base - hondofs
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
That's not true. There is a consensus that humans are at least partly responsible.
The stupid thing is. Even if all the world scientists are wrong on global warming, the worst case scenario is we have cleaner air. Seriously. That's why I don't get why the regressives are so passionate about denying climate change.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
You want to take the gloves off Race You want to get down in a pissing match Let’s do it Let’s roll I’m getting completely fed up with your hate negativity and throwing people under the bus Quite frankly Race I’m very VERY happy that I don’t know you I’m quite happy that I don’t lead what appears to be such a pathetic life that is faced with looking for the negativity in every situation You need to go find something to smile at Last I checked it’s summertime The weather in Seattle seems to be pretty damn good right now – why don’t you go check that out You are pretty damn wrong about things You may think that the amount of time that you keep spewing your views that that you’ve now heard it enough times that you are right Doesn’t make you right You talk about 12-47 like that happened out of the blue sky I’ve never seen you once suggest that the process of the downfall of this program began well before Emmert arrived You want facts You want truth Here’s your truth Emmert came to the UW prior to the GLORIOUS 1-10 season under Gilby The year before that (2003) Gilby managed to do enough to get us to 6-6 but that included the debacle at Cal where we gave up 700 yards (or thereabouts) It was an indifferent team that pretty much was at best mediocre We lost 5 of our last 8 including the blowout to Cal the blowout to UCLA and a home loss to NEVADA Yep the program was heading in the right direction The 2002 season under Slick was another sterling season example that is most remembered for the “Northwest Championship” That was great But it hid the fact that going into the “Northwest Championship” we were a 4-5 football team that was pretty much a joke at 1-4 in the conference In both 2002 and 2003 we finished the season with a 4-4 conference record These weren’t good football teams The trend was heading downhill Emmert comes on board and immediately gets sadled with the Gilby 1-10 debacle Prior to Emmert coming on board Babs jumps ship after a decade of mis-management including allowing the stadium to begin the erosion process Throughout 2003 we’re faced with Slick leaving and the subsequent lawsuit(s) Dr Feelgood and a whole mess with the softball program and Teresa Wilson Now keep in mind the following ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE EMMERT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Things were not in great shape I think just about everybody knew that A search committee is formed to replace Babs The BOR upper campus and the big donor supporters of the school are sick of the egg showing up on their face They are sick of the country club that Babs ran and the loose way she ran the department – particularly in light of what went on with Slick They wanted someone prim proper and who they could count on would not sully the University name ENTER TODD TURNER Now this pretty much gets you up to the point where Emmert was hired Did he have to sign off on the hiring of Turner Most likely But whatever At this point Emmert isn’t responsible for the on-field performance of the football program There is a coach in place It’s not Emmert’s job to oversee the football program or any other program in the athletic department That job belongs to Todd Turner It’s Emmert’s job to monitor the job performance of Todd Turner So 1-10 happens Gilby is canned by Turner (rightfully so) Yes the program went 1-10 But the actions of those charged with overseeing the program were correct Turner fired the coach for poor performance If I’m in Emmert’s shoes I can’t complain Coaching search takes place and Turner has his heart set on Tyrone Willingham It’s Turner’s hire It’s not Emmert’s hire Surely Emmert had to sign off on the hire That’s fine You want to throw some blame on him for not having the foresight to negate the hire That’s fine But the hire isn’t Emmert’s responsibility It’s Turner’s responsibility It’s Emmert’s responsibility to hold Turner accountable for the hire (which he did 3 years later when it was obvious that Tyrone wasn’t the answer) So Tyrone goes 2-9 the first year after a 1-10 year Not great Warning signs start going off particularly with some poor performance to close games But it’s the first year of the regime and really hard to get too critical The next year the program goes 5-7 and has 2 significant events The first significant event is the loss of the QB to injury I think many could argue that without the loss of Isaiah that year we go 6-6 The second event that was significant was the “suddenly senior” day and the unexplicable loss to Stanford with the most emotionless football team anybody had ever seen Again there’s not enough there to fire Tyrone at that point There are warning signs There is ground to pretty much tell Tyrone that the following year is an action year where something needs to happen He’s on a short leash at this point in my opinion The following year we lose games in ways that are unexplainable Blow a huge loss to Arizona – a game we should have never lost The most ridiculous ending to an Apple Cup I’ve ever seen where a guy was open by 20 yards coming out of a timeout Blowing a pair of 21 point leads to Hawai’i It was pretty obvious at this point that things weren’t working Coaching change was in order Perhaps an AD change was also in order The coaching change was blocked and complicated The AD’s head fell – and rightfully so due to some other issues that he had and such a terrible hire of a head coach Prior to the decision to fire Tyrone after 2007 it’s really hard to argue with ANYTHING that Emmert had done with respect to the football program I will say that bringing Tyrone back for 2008 was a disasterous mistake It should have never happened You want to throw 0-12 on Emmert – I’m all for it I think if you caught Emmert in a reflective truthful moment he would tell you in hindsight that he should have made the move and that it wasn’t worth the carnage of 0-12 Throw Emmert under the bus for 2008 That’s his responsibility 2004-2007 Not so much By all means please please tell me where he has responsibility for 2004 and 2007 other than the fact that he’s the University President Please tell me what specific actions that he did to undermine the program You aren’t going to find them – they aren’t there Your criticism of Emmert is ridiculous Your criticism of Woodward is just downright comical Where has Woodward screwed this program He has only been responsible for this program in the summer of 2008 in a full-time role Are you going to hold him to the fire for being the interim AD for the first half of 2008 How is he responsible for anything from 2004-2007 when he wasn’t even involved with the Athletic Department Talk about conspiracy theories This may be one of the greatest conspiracy theories I’ve ever seen I don’t like losing I don’t like what I’ve seen the last 5 years It’s made me sick to my stomach many times over But unlike you I can at least take a step back and realize that the genesis of this problem began well before Mark Emmert became President of the University of Washington If I spent my time being a “mindless Race Bannon minion” then I’d be convinced that the only logical explanation for our failures have been Mark Emmert and Scott Woodward Quite frankly that opinion is one of the most idiotic insanely stupid opinions that I’ve ever seen in my life I don’t defend the “wrong targets” There is blame to be thrown Emmert’s way I readily acknowledge that But it isn’t his full blame Babs deserves blame Gerberding deserves blame McCormick deserves some blame Slick deserves some blame Gilby deserves some blame Turner deserves some blame Tyrone deserves some blame Of the names I’ve listed only 3 of those names have any timeline that extends into any portion of Emmert’s tenure That’s less than half of those names Quite frankly Race you are a world class donkey When I hear people bitch and moan about the people in the State of Washington – you are a crystal example of why people bitch about the State of Washington When I hear people that bitch about the fans of the University of Washington and what their complaints are you represent what those complaints are In my opinion you are not good for the University of Washington You aren’t helping the program You aren’t helping the University You are entirely self-serving and a pompous egotistical jerk You are barking up the wrong tree if you are going after me I’m not naive enough to shove my head so far up my arse to ignore what I am seeing I don’t think that there is anybody that knows me that would say that I wouldn’t call a spade a spade All that paying for and attending games longer than I’ve been alive has done for you is given you a perceived ability to go be a bitter old man Congrats on that Thanks for showing those of us in a younger generation how not to act in 20-30 years when we are in your shoes
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
That's not true. There is a consensus that humans are at least partly responsible.
The stupid thing is. Even if all the world scientists are wrong on global warming, the worst case scenario is we have cleaner air. Seriously. That's why I don't get why the regressives are so passionate about denying climate change.
You seem to have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
That's not true. There is a consensus that humans are at least partly responsible.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
That's not true. There is a consensus that humans are at least partly responsible.
Nobody has more cash than the government, much of it laundered through academia. But still we'll just pretend that science is about consensus and that there is one and there is an actual workable solution.
Low info leftard voters demand it
Science is about improving our collective knowledge and making things better for humanity.
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
Nice sound bite but that's not what science is about at all. It's about discovery and developing understanding.
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
Except you conveniently forget to mentioning the post industrial revolution spike in CO2 which is the smoking gun for human impact. It is a pretty clear cause and effect and comes from the same ice core data that your basing your argument on.
I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.
Southern prefers to believe politicians and political pundits over actual scientists.
Lol right because scientists don't have some sort of agenda either.
Scientists have peer reviewed articles and accountability when they lie about shit. Politicians and political pundits make money off lying about shit and no one cares when they do.
Good Lord you are so fucking stupid.
Yet you think politicians don't have a vested monetary interest in keeping stupid people ignorant to the climate.
You don't get it, Republicans may be unilateral across the world in their denial of climate change, but ignore that and their campaign contributions, it's the climate scientists that are evil and corrupt.
WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!
Noone is denying that there is climate change. The question conservatives have is, So what? None of the doomsday predictions such as sea level rise or the SE being pummeled by Cat 12 Hurricanes every year have proven true. Other than alkaline levels in the Sea, I'm not sure what the problem is. And I'm not sure anyone can tie that to climate change even 81%.
Comments
Low info leftard voters demand it
Naturally, Troomps hate science.
I also know that calling for trillions of dollars to be spent with no return measurable by any science is even more fucking stupid
I'm not sure how voluntarily spending on money on reducing carbon output is inherently bad though. There's probably a lot of scientific and economic advancement that could come from this.
But that doesn't get votes from the base - hondofs
Anthropogenic global warming is not so much a science as it is a religion preached by political activists, politicians and "researchers" tapping into near boundless streams of funding aimed at supporting the religion and it's political causes. AGW faithful describe skeptics as "climate change deniers" and have a simple faith test, "do you believe in climate change?", wherein they're really asking whether or not you believe humans are causing the planet to heat uncontrollably. It's nonsense.
The climate is always changing, the "science is settled" on that point, but that is where the so called "consensus" ends. The planet has been much hotter and much cooler than it is currently and has been both with much higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Global temperature variations are driven by a number things including variations in solar radiation, orbital path, ocean temperatures, atmospheric water vapor, volcanic activity, etc. Scientists agree on these things, but they don't agree on the significance of human activity.
The stupid thing is. Even if all the world scientists are wrong on global warming, the worst case scenario is we have cleaner air. Seriously. That's why I don't get why the regressives are so passionate about denying climate change.
Noone is denying that there is climate change. The question conservatives have is, So what? None of the doomsday predictions such as sea level rise or the SE being pummeled by Cat 12 Hurricanes every year have proven true. Other than alkaline levels in the Sea, I'm not sure what the problem is. And I'm not sure anyone can tie that to climate change even 81%.