Hemispherical Snowline Extent

[burnt]

Some really interesting links on this twitter feed -

https://twitter.com/tan123 https://twitter.com/tan123

"...climate bedwetters..." LOL!

[jazz]

Scientists are paid by Who??? Who need money to pay scientists. So Who get money from who?
Who get money by taxation of who. It’s a pretty straight line Chuck. Are you a Who or are you a who?

There are two types of scientists. The top notch ones are hired into industry R&D to do research to create products for those companies.

Where do the rest go? Academia, govt, NGOs, lobby groups, consultant for hire (by govt). All paid for by tax payer money.

Go ask a scientist working in pharma and see how repeatable research is.

[fjlip]

Some really interesting links on this twitter feed -

https://twitter.com/tan123 https://twitter.com/tan123

"...climate bedwetters..." LOL!

EXCELLENT comments below the "Climate ‘Science’ Riddled With Dishonesty, Incompetence" article.

Smart thinking people can see right through the BULLSHIT!

This applies to most..."Actually, it is the Holy Grail for all of those people who have only two brain cells which rattle when they walk. Stupid is as stupid does. These morons are being led around by the nose by a bunch of elitist "superiors". Since the remedy advertised to halt climate change is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, destroying the world's economy, and creating chaos, one might suspect that there is likely a nefarious ulterior motive behind the bogus concept of climate change. Like the ozone hole before it, the concept is driven by fear of the unknown. The left is using that old propaganda technique of telling a big lie, and keep telling it until it becomes accepted as truth. Sorry lefties, but that dog won't hunt as long as there are intelligent people around."


Thanks burnt.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

1. Water is also essential to life but too much of it in the wrong place will flood you and destroy your crop.
CO2 is essential to life but it is also a greenhouse gas that causes climate change which is scientific fact and not in dispute. Too much of it is the problem.

And I will ask you again, because you obviously weren't paying attention the last time we went through this:

At what concentration does CO2 become a pollutant, or in other words, if we keep increasing CO2, how high does it have to be before the detriments outweigh the benefits? How many multiples of today's ppm before plants quit responding favourably to more CO2? And do we have enough fossil fuel reserves to reach that number?

You can search our old threads if you want the answer.






A hint, try searching the number 10,000.