FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=43562
C'mon, Forbes is paid by oil companies and auto makers to say that.ASUG8 wrote:A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.
...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland InstituteASUG8 wrote:A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm in the blue.89Hen wrote:I'm in the white, so I don't give a fuck.
79 degrees here today, 92 tomorrow, 98 SundayCAA Flagship wrote:Current temp in St. Louis: 94
It's a pleasant 70 with a nice breeze here in the Great White North.CAA Flagship wrote:I'm in the blue.89Hen wrote:I'm in the white, so I don't give a fuck.
Current temp in St. Louis: 94
Sunday sounds like a three-glove day on the course.89Hen wrote:79 degrees here today, 92 tomorrow, 98 SundayCAA Flagship wrote:Current temp in St. Louis: 94
Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.Brock Landers wrote:...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland InstituteASUG8 wrote:A good contrasting read that is not generated by our government.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well shit, maybe a certain poster who doesn't know that burning fossil fuels produces CO2 could weigh in and straighten us out.ASUG8 wrote:Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.Brock Landers wrote:
...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute
ASUG8 wrote:Did you read the article? It really doesn't sound like it.Brock Landers wrote:
...not generated by the government (or any sort of scientist), but by the Heartland Institute
I'm sure you're referring to the reference to the NIPCC and their, uh... "study"The science behind all of this is thoroughly explained in the 1200 pages of Climate Change Reconsidered II, authored by 50 top scientists organized into the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and published by the Heartland Institute in Chicago
These talking points have been up on the NOAA website for months. If anyone had bothered to read the articles I've been posting in the "Nub of the climate change" thread, you'd have noticed several groups had painstakingly, comprehensively, debunked the NOAA's "reported data". NOAA has been REPEATEDLY caught either directly changing data, cherry-picking data/parameters/time ranges, or "refining definitions" to force results.bluehenbillk wrote:If you don't want to call it that or if you want to be stubborn & deny it OK. You can call it broken instead but when the NOAA says it, well it is real....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... te-records" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You mean like this one:travelinman67 wrote:These talking points have been up on the NOAA website for months. If anyone had bothered to read the articles I've been posting in the "Nub of the climate change" thread, you'd have noticed several groups had painstakingly, comprehensively, debunked the NOAA's "reported data". NOAA has been REPEATEDLY caught either directly changing data, cherry-picking data/parameters/time ranges, or "refining definitions" to force results.bluehenbillk wrote:If you don't want to call it that or if you want to be stubborn & deny it OK. You can call it broken instead but when the NOAA says it, well it is real....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... te-records" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Who controls environmental regulations controls the masses.
Wake the fuck up.
...where after it picked up some attention the original author had to weigh in:travelinman67 wrote:NOAA "pristine" data shows U.S. in 10 year cooling period.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/ameri ... ing-trend/
Oops!
For the record:
I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.
Maybe she also missed that I lambast those who think CO2 doesn’t have any effect at all. Yes, she must have missed all those things doing that “high-quality journalism” from Newsweek
Was that a rhetorical question?Brock Landers wrote:Actually, can someone explain to me why you think this is some liberal/government/scientist conspiracy to subvert or twist the truth? What do they have to gain?
Study:Brock Landers wrote:Actually, can someone explain to me why you think this is some liberal/government/scientist conspiracy to subvert or twist the truth? What do they have to gain?
I fall in neither category, but I'm not sure they are equal.Brock Landers wrote:I also love how liberal anti-vaxxers and conservative adamant denialists = two sides of the same coin. One side gets angry whenever the government is trying to infect them with "toxins", and the other gets pissed when the government tries to tell them what to do with "toxins"
