Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Earlier today you said "You guys are such gullible idiots."
(Just not gullible enough for a simpleton heat & air installer to manipulate)

But NOW we're "stubborn, ignorant, stupid, ideologically crazed, morons."?

Given our new attributes or shall we say "progress" in such a short time. Would we now meet the definition of a "progressive"?

 

Bullshit, SS's funding does NOT come primarily from Al Gore. That's total horseshit.

And who the hell cares what Al Gore does except for fucked-up right wing nutjobs? It has NOTHING to with the factual and overwhelming science of AGW, you idiot.

Al Gore has devoted much of life to get the word out about AGW and he puts his money where it can do the best work. It's not because he manipulating a hoax so he can profit. You're an idiot.

Skeptical Science is citizen funded and staffed. In fact, I just donated $20 to it.

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.[20] The site does not contain banner ads and is funded entirely by Cook himself, with reader donations.[1] All regular and guest authors contribute strictly voluntarily.

 

You're even more useless than gwb and jerm. You are a moron with no substance at all. Only cheap pot shots

You are now on ignore you detestable ignorant douchebag.

 

Here's your answer.



























































































































































































Go fuck yourself.

 

More things Al Gore claims to have invented - Tofurkey, Vegannaise, and tempeh

Al Gore goes vegan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...re-goes-vegan-with-little-fanfare/?tid=pm_pop

Got Beef - Al Gore doesn't. Nor does he have any evidence of man-made global warming.

 

Real pollution (not ‘carbon’ pollution) increases storm clouds
Posted on November 26, 2013 by Anthony Watts
From the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: A common theme among climate alarmists is that the wrongly named ‘carbon pollution’ aka carbon dioxide, increases the frequency and intensity of storms. Observational data show that NOT to be true, and this new study shows why real pollution (aerosols) results in larger, deeper and longer lasting storm clouds, leading to colder days and warmer nights – Anthony



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...-pollution-increases-storm-clouds/#more-98178

 

CO2 causing Increased Cooling of Atmosphere

As demonstrated in Rescue from the Climate Saviors, increasing levels of CO2 and other IR-active gases in the atmosphere increase the natural cooling system of the earth. IR-active gases do not supply additional heating power to the earth and are not a cause of “global warming”. IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface and act to cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. An increase in concentration only serves to increase the cooling efficiency, and now there is additional empirical evidence. A new paper shows that increased CO2 concentrations have increased the cooling efficiency of the upper atmosphere, and in combination with the 2008 solar minimum, resulted in the lowest upper atmospheric density recorded in 43 years.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/co2-causing-increased-cooling-of.html


also note...

The Sun was unusually quiet during the prolonged solar minimum of 2007-2009, and the research team found that the associated reduction in solar UV heating can partly explain the reduction in density. Increasing concentrations of CO2 near the Earth's surface are likely making their way into the upper atmosphere and are thus increasing the upper atmosphere cooling efficiency. However, it is not yet clear whether the combination of reduced solar UV heating and enhanced CO2 cooling can fully account for the occurrence of the anomalously low thermospheric density, and the researchers suggested that changes in upper atmospheric chemistry and composition may have also contributed to the record-low density.

 

And still....we have this data.

 

So once again you are posting the same old fabricated chart over and over again. You don't have anything new to contribute, eh? I guess the your part in the organizated effort to "drown out" people posting factual and relevant information simply involves posting the same old tired nonsense continually.

So answer the question - Are you part of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" whose sole intent is to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions? Simple one word answer - Yes or No.