Welcome to Discuss Everything Forums...

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.


 

Tags for this Thread

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    leo lion's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    if you need credibility then you should look for the truth yourself as anything given to you will not believed anyway

  2. #22
    Ninja Joe's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Climate change means what it says. It does not mean anything man made, so I believe it.

  3. #23
    Jimmbbo's Avatar
    Senior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    122
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    You betcha!

    The entire MGW crisis argument rests on 21 IPCC computer climate models that forecast increased CO2 and temperature.

    No climate scientist will say they completely understand all of the atmospheric interactions, and they agree that the largest unknown in these interactions is the behavior of water vapor and clouds, so they make educated assumptions about how the atmosphere behaves.

    All of the IPCC models assume that cloud formation and dissipation work to increase CO2 (positive "feedback"), enhancing global warming, generating forecasts of dangerous "tipping point" levels of CO2 and runaway temperatures.

    But what if those assumptions were wrong? What if water vapor and clouds had a different interaction? One that was less positive, and in fact was negative, helping to moderate atmospheric temperature? Until satellite sensors were launched in the late '90s and early '00s, no one had the observed data to answer that question.

    In 2002, NASA launched the Aqua satellite to gather atmospheric temperature data. Award winning climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has spent years recording and analyzing the Aqua data, and his recently peer-reviewed and published observations indicate that the IPCC model assumptions are incorrect, to the point that if his observations are verified, the increase in atmospheric temperature is within normal limits.

  4. #24
    Mark's Avatar
    Senior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,409
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    They will link you to a site funded by Exxon, or some other vested interest, and some are not even aware of it.

 

 

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Click here to log in


What is the number after 87?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Will this weather vs. climate video silence a denier or two?
    By C-Tech in forum Discuss Environment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2010, 04:56 AM
  2. Would "The Professor" have been a climate change denier?
    By C-Tech in forum Discuss Environment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 06:48 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-25-2010, 10:31 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-01-2009, 04:50 PM
  5. Is Roy Spencer a "natural climate change denier"?
    By Dawei in forum Discuss Environment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-02-2009, 05:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •