The studies of climatologists cover those whose work is in the field of climatology, regardless of whether their credentials state physics or oceanography, or whatever.
There are very few people in the world smart enough to understand all of the sciences, how they fit together, and also understand computer programming. Climate science is basically science by committee. Unfortunately that committee has been taken over by an agenda and anyone that is not on board with the 'consensus' is out of the picture.
No, you got that backwards. The fact that climatology is the sum of numerous separate disciplines makes it harder (I would say impossible) to control by some conspiracy. The "boss" of the conspiracy (as if such could ever be established) would need to be able to tell physicists, chemists, oceanographers, and all the rest who are working in countries all over the world what it is that they "need" to find in order to support the conspiracy. There is NO chance that a "boss" of the climatology conspiracy would be able to do that. It's just far too complex. How could, say, the IPCC tell NASA what satellites need to detect - AND keep it secret? Plus, these scientists HAVE reported results that have at least temporarily proven to be difficult to integrate.
Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001. He is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program. He, obviously, did not lose his job. Why the lie? He has written 5-7 books, so I guess his income hasn't been adversely effected. I read part of his own story here... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/ Most of his complaints seem to stem from a pissing contest between him and people running a blog called 538.
What a weak and lame upload. What specifically, pah-leeze. Like address, where was Vinland? We are on to YOU, WillReadmore Trust Moi. WillReadmore is not Socrates. He Can't Answer the question Moi r > g View attachment 47267 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Yes. I have NO idea what Hoosier was referencing. So, all I could do is to say that I stand by what I said. And, I addressed your Vinland post thoroughly.
I said I do believe in the theory of evolution get it straight and I dont give 2 craps what the catholic church believes and Im sure you dont either Yeah and I think the earth is flat
Real gdp growth rate under Obama has been ~ 2%. Population grows at ~ 1% per year. Therefore gdp growth rate per capita is ~ 1%.
He doesn't do climate science anymore. He was hired by 538 and was basically driven out by the alarmists for pointing out that extreme weather events are not predicted to become more frequent. I pointed out a typo in his book "The Climate Fix" to him and he sent me a free copy of the paper back version.
OK, but what you described is a conspiracy of coordinated false information. You can't propose an organized world wide campaign of providing detailed, but false scientific information and suggest it isn't a conspiracy.
Yes, on that we agree. YOU are not Socrates! Where was Vinland and your best guess after your number 1, it was "Viking Propaganda" pah-leeze The Viking Sagas have been archeologically verified since I was a kid and in the fifties, there was only the sagas. Tell us, where was Vinland, your second best guess beyond Viking Propaganda? You see, Boys and Girls: The Medieval Warm Period is the Bane of Global Warming Alarmist and believers such as Spread fertilizer over the South Pacific Ocean and realize a carbon sink as well as new fisheries. Consider it recycling, CO2 Moi trusts written records from that time as well as biological records to conclude it ain't as warm as it was in the Medieval Warm Up as it is today. No way. Not by biology or history.WillReadmore's paid for science is out of sych with so much other information. Moi r > g View attachment 47268 Global Warming. Who Benefits? Yup Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
I never said anything about false scientific information except possibly the questionable 'pause buster' paper Karl et. al. which is being investigated because of a whistle blower. Bad science is a different issue like Cooks 97% and Mann's hockey stick which the IPCC embraced but have since dropped. There are only a few media attention grabbing scientists like litigious Micheal Mann on the alarmist side but they are rare. The media on the other hand is a different matter. If it scares you it is probable false or at least highly suspect. Same goes for politicians like Al Gore.
I will consent to any location of your choosing - North America, Canada, Greenland, Finland, the Arctic. Take your pick. My point is that while the stories of the travels of the Norse are interesting, they don't override what we have from science concerning the history of earth's average temperature. As we know, the statements of that era were formed for various reasons - accurate reporting not always being among them. Plus, we do have people who study historic records for climate information - that is, it isn't being overlooked. So where are we? It is believed that other regions of earth during that same period were colder than usual, which would mean that earth's temperature during that time can not be extrapolated from changes in just this one region. Also, that period in history is known to have had greater solar activity and less volcanic activity than usual - known factors in earth's average temperature. Climatologists point to solar activity as one of the causes of climate change, as noted in the charts I've linked on this thread. So, climatologists today see temperatures during that Medieval period as the result of anomalous factors and that the average temperature of earth during that period wasn't as warm is it is today. Remember that I stated this yesterday with slightly less detail and I have seen no rebuttal from you or anyone else.
The sites I use are aware that the US population grows from year to year. Also, when you divide growth by population, a 1% change in the denominator doesn't cause a 50% change in the product.
Just denial of inconvenient science and Where was Vinland. Your second best guess after the propaganda theory. Where was Vinland? No obfuscation! ob·fus·ca·tion ˌnoun: obfuscation; plural noun: obfuscations the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. "when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation" Moi Got Obfuscation? Follow WillReadmore. Not Moi! r > g View attachment 47269 Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
If the population grows by 1% the gdp will grow by 1%. If the total growth of the economy is 2% then the real growth normalized for population growth is only 1%.
