Let this be clear. Universities thrive on being funded, not on dissenting ideas. The top source of university research funding during the past decade is 'global warming' dollars amounting to over $50 Billion dollars poured in to universities to fund research results that are pre-ordained in advance. A good portion of papers that pass peer review are factually wrong. Why are these papers allowed to pass peer review? Many have to be retracted after being found to be totally fabricated. For example, the clown in England whose papers claimed that vaccines cause autism with entirely made-up data. It is tragic that factually incorrect papers are cited in public policy decisions that cost millions (if not billions) of dollars and cause public misery. The global warming hoax is not merely fiddling with data but fabricating data while the world burns - it is driving bad public policy causing misery throughout the third world by denying people electricity and energy. All of this is outlined in the The Great Global Warming Swindle video. You should watch it and learn.
Everyone needs money, including your dissenters. Tiny fringe groups probably need it more than anyone.
To those who believe man made CO2 is causing Global warming. Please put forth here on this thread... Your top five proofs evidence conjecture of man causing Global warming. Please label your proffer as proof evidence or conjecture. I would like to see if you realize you are bullshitting or not.
You still haven't answered my question: does the CO2 molecule absorb radiant energy at wavelengths above 4000 nanometers, or not?
If you have the brain power or the guts to make the argument that man made CO2 is causing warming on the earth...(not in a lab holding all other things equal) go ahead and make your argument. I have made a very simple challenge. You tell us 97% of the worlds experts say man made CO2 is causing warming... So lets see the proof.. or the absence of proof the evidence or in the absence of evidence the conjecture. By the way I googled this before laying down the challenge... You know what you get from NASA? 1. a scary graph of CO2... .like the one used by fc 2. a comment that in a lab CO2 can reflect warming (ricter and fc's frequent argument) 3. and scary pictures. I would score that as zero proof zero evidence (because a lab is not an open CO2 eating system like the earth) some conjecture
Is that the best you can come up with? You are totally unable to carry on a rational conversation and outline information & data. You have to resort to posting "That's bullshit" and "You're delusional". I take it that shouting using the caps will provide so much more emphasis. The Toronto National Post has a very good series of articles over time called the "The Deniers". Perhaps you should read them and get educated. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71