I'll say this one more time. If you think these two things are comparable, you are an idiot. Go ahead. Put me on ignore. You are a good ostrich. Like most of the denier idiots.
Are you totally incapable of reading all the articles and linked material - including statements from Nobel Prize-Winning Physicists. Your inability to read and comprehend is a serious issue. Back in the old days we called this "retarded" but now they have new politically correct terms for being 'slow'. Sounds like you can only repeat the same nonsense like a parrot and not learn anything new.
Though I sometimes get sucked into it I still have to ask... the oil & gas sector has already accepted the reality of AGW, have publically stated it, and have been making adaptations to it (mostly overseas) for years. The use of carbon capture tech, carbon taxation, and cap and trade are in use all over the world and spreading. So why do you feel such a need to convince the posters here?
No, I'm glad you realize that the earth has not stopped warming. Maybe you could tell that lying douchebag jerm. Well, smart people listen to smarter people that are qualified by education and profession. Essentially every science organization says man responsible for most of the GW over the last several decades. The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 Or one can listen to Fox News and read Forbes for one's science.
That's what I thought. You are lying. It should be easy for you to take the sentence that says over half of them resigned. But you can't. Because IT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. You are an idiot.
Well I keep thinking that maybe they just don't know the facts. Folks that get their "science" from Fox News and Forbes and WUWT can be assumed to be deluded and ignorant. I keep hoping that once the facts are presented that the small piece of rational part in their brain will get it. Or maybe I'm a masochist. Besides, don't you know? The fossil fuel industry is also in on the GW conspiracy so they can control the world. Or something.
The fossil fuel industry does control the world, and likes it just fine that way, mwahahaha! Well, except for government interference. : )
Yes, which makes the idea that the green industry is dominating the FF industry with the GW issue , absurd. It's like a SUMO wrestler and a little old lady in the ring together.
common sense simple science is that co2 lags ocean warming ocean cooling. the oceans release c02 when they warm and they eat up c02 when they cool. that is common sense simple science. it then takes an agw nutter to say therefore man made c02 causes warming. here is the science which backs up common sense. http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003). And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)." So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles? Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find? Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."