"Some 56 million years ago, a massive pulse of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In the oceans, carbonate sediments dissolved, some organisms went extinct and others evolved.
Scientists have long suspected that ocean acidification caused the crisis—similar to today, as manmade CO2 combines with seawater to change its chemistry. Now, for the first time, scientists have quantified the extent of surface acidification from those ancient days, and the news is not good: the oceans are on track to acidify at least as much as they did then, only at a much faster rate." Source.
"“Our study shows that deep water formation can be disrupted by the freshening of regional surface water, which might happen under increased precipitation and the melting of glaciers and reduction of polar icecaps,” Rosenthal says.
Rosenthal explains that surface water in the far North Atlantic becomes colder and denser in the winter time, sinks to the bottom, and circulates all through the North and South Atlantic, finds its way to the Southern Ocean, and then the Indian and Pacific oceans. Eventually the water that sank to the bottom of the North Atlantic rises toward the surface in other parts of the world, still relatively cold and rich in nutrients.
Scientists had thought thermohaline circulation was stable during periods between ice ages, but Rosenthal and his co-authors suggest that was not the case 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial period." Source.
Study: A precipitation shift from snow towards rain leads to a decrease in streamflow "New research has shown for the first time that the amount of water flowing through rivers in snow-affected regions depends significantly on how much of the precipitation falls as snowfall. This means in a warming climate, if less of the precipitation falls as snow, rivers will discharge less water than they currently do.
The authors of the study said: “With more than one-sixth of the Earth’s population depending on meltwater for their water supply, and ecosystems that can be sensitive to streamflow alterations, the socio-economic consequences of a reduction in streamflow can be substantial."" Source.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I never said they became scientists to get rich. It is undeniable that there is funding specifically for Global Warming research. The conclusion of any study is guarenteed by the money going into them. Come to a different conclusion and lose your funding and get attacked by your "peers".
The scientists labelled as "deniers" are refused funding for their research. Even the tenured professors are silenced when their work is defunded.
That's not even a logical argument. Science is science no matter what the result is, if someone suddenly could prove a theory that Climate change had nothing to do with man made contributions you think the funding and research would stop after one study? Fossil Fuel companies and Governments would be lining up to fund something that would help keep the companies profits.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-04-2014).]
You must have missed the whole point of his parody. I'll give you a hint, he is not making fun of those new stories. Be believes in the Alarmist hysteria.
You are just being a sore loser now. Just admit your challenge that you issued twice was beaten.
That's not even a logical argument. Science is science no matter what the result is, if someone suddenly could prove a theory that Climate change had nothing to do with man made contributions you think the funding and research would stop after one study? Fossil Fuel companies and Governments would be lining up to fund something that would help keep the companies profits.
Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor who dared to question global warming
Professor Lennart Bengtsson's study was rejected and branded 'harmful'
This sparked accusations that scientists are censoring findings
The 79-year-old is one of the world’s most eminent climate scientists
Last week, he resigned from the Global Warming Policy Foundation's advisory council
"Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor [Lennart Bengtsson] who dared to question global warming"
IOP Publishing explains why Bengtsson's paper was rejected, including explanations from the reviewers on where and how the paper came up short of their criteria for publishing:
That's not even a logical argument. Science is science no matter what the result is, if someone suddenly could prove a theory that Climate change had nothing to do with man made contributions you think the funding and research would stop after one study? Fossil Fuel companies and Governments would be lining up to fund something that would help keep the companies profits.
That was my point...that scientists, for the most part, follow the scientific method, and there would have to be mass collusion of scientists to "fake" all of this evidence.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You must have missed the whole point of his parody. I'll give you a hint, he is not making fun of those new stories.
You don't understand his show.
"The character, described by Colbert as a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot", is a caricature of televised political pundits." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Be believes in the Alarmist hysteria.
Owls are alarmist hysteria. Hats too.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: You are just being a sore loser now. Just admit your challenge that you issued twice was beaten.
You were looking for news stories that I posted that attributed weather events to global warming.
You found an article about China announcing an emissions cap and a satirical comedy show.
I find it odd you complain about the quality of media coverage concerning consequences of anthropogenic global warming, but you have no problem using a manufactured controversy in celebrity tabloid. Such illogical nature.
The United States is warming fastest at two of its corners, in the Northeast and the Southwest, an analysis of federal temperature records shows.
Northeast and Southwest? I wonder if there's a correlation? Well there you have it. The science is irrefutable. Liberal hot air is causing global warming.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-05-2014).]
Northeast and Southwest? I wonder if there's a correlation? Well there you have it. The science is irrefutable. Liberal hot air is causing global warming.
You seem to like to throw out videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson on other subjects to support your opinions. Do you not agree with him on this subject?
quote
Neil deGrasse Tyson says the wealthy will soon be forced to pay attention to climate change: Not because of any political movement, but because of basic economics.
During an interview on All In With Chris Hayes on Monday, the renowned astrophysicist said the evidence is mounting that climate change will have extreme economic ramifications. And that, in turn, will get the rich to pay attention.
"If they start to lose their wealth, they change their minds real fast," Tyson said. "Particularly in a capitalist culture."
If steps are not taken to fight climate change, many of the global economy's key coastal cities and commerce hubs could be lost to rising sea levels, said Tyson, who is the host of the television series "Cosmos" and the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of National History.
"Don't expect to conduct civilizations the way we now do, because all the coastlines will get redrawn," he warned.
quote
Tyson also took the well-funded climate-change denial movement to task. Everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, he said, but those in a position of power have a responsibility to rely on something more than faith.
"I'd like to think that governance is based on objectively verifiable truths," he said. "Otherwise, what kind of culture have we created?"
Originally posted by newf: Do you not agree with him on this subject?
I wouldn't be surprised if he does agree. A lot of folks that spew that kind of trollish political rhetoric act like they have a daily quota to meet. It's their form of recreation.
I think that there are a considerable number who accept the greenhouse mechanism, and the significance of carbon dioxide emissions, and also more or less accept the scenarios of the IPCC in the ways that global warming will become increasingly manifest as the current century unfolds.
But they are dubious about the various climate mitigation programs around the world (especially in Europe) that are intended to foster the widespread adoption of "green" energy and conservation technologies. They are reluctant to have federal and/or state mandates to try and move the U.S. in that same direction. They expect the climate mitigation mandates to have negative effects on the economy without having any significant positive effect in terms of slowing down the pace of global warming. Maybe we are already beyond the greenhouse tipping point, or so close already that we won't be able to arrest global warming before the tipping point. Some think that it makes more sense to sequester resources and use them for adaptation (coping with climate change), instead of mitigation (trying to slow the pace of climate change). There was a discussion about that here, about the "50-to1 Project".
I think that's a tough call. Is there a payoff for arresting carbon emissions, knowing that the threshold of 450 ppm will certainly be exceeded under any and all mitigation scenarios? Is there any payoff for holding close to that threshold (450 ppm), or is it a case of after we get to that point, all the damage has already been done, and more CO2 above 450 ppm is just more CO2, without any further consequence? I think that is where the science needs to be improved and communicated to the general public.
Of course, there are those who are completely idealogical or politically partisan about it. It's a problem invented by "liberals" with an underlying agenda for expanding the scope of government and restricting the freedoms of private enterprise. Or it's "Obama". Or "Al Gore". (Remember him?)
And the other popular contrivances, that have become enshrined as urban myths: I knew it was a fraud when they started using the phrase "climate change" instead of "global warming". In the 1970s "they" were predicting global cooling: Why should I put any credence in what they are saying now?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-05-2014).]
I wouldn't be surprised if he does agree. A lot of folks that spew that kind of trollish political rhetoric act like they have a daily quota to meet. It's their form of recreation.
You should read the corvette forum when you get a chance. Its actually sad. They flat out make stuff up and eviscerate you if you call them out on it. Someone said that volcanos put out over 20x more Co2 than humans. I said that wasn't true and provided numerous studies contradicting him. Everyone started calling me a liberal hack and that those studies were BS because his statement was common knowledge.
I find it odd you complain about the quality of media coverage concerning consequences of anthropogenic global warming, but you have no problem using a manufactured controversy in celebrity tabloid. Such illogical nature.
LENNART BENGTSSON RESIGNS: GWPF VOICES SHOCK AND CONCERN AT THE EXTENT OF INTOLERANCE WITHIN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.
Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Resigning from the GWPF Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
Your letter of resignation Dear Professor Bengtsson,
I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.
Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.
Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.
In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.
With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.
David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council
Letter by Nigel Lawson to Professor Bengtsson Dear Professor Bengtsson
It is with great regret that I read your email to David Henderson informing him of your decision to resign from the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF.
I fully understand your reason; but it is an appalling state of affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted.
I am very sorry that your brief association with the GWPF has, as a result of the disgraceful behaviour of others, caused you such distress.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Lawson, Chairman, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
"Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor [Lennart Bengtsson] who dared to question global warming"
IOP Publishing explains why Bengtsson's paper was rejected, including explanations from the reviewers on where and how the paper came up short of their criteria for publishing:
[QUOTE] LENNART BENGTSSON RESIGNS: GWPF VOICES SHOCK AND CONCERN AT THE EXTENT OF INTOLERANCE WITHIN THE CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council. The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.
Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Resigning from the GWPF Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
Your letter of resignation Dear Professor Bengtsson,
I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.
Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.
Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.
In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.
With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.
David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council
Letter by Nigel Lawson to Professor Bengtsson Dear Professor Bengtsson
It is with great regret that I read your email to David Henderson informing him of your decision to resign from the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF.
I fully understand your reason; but it is an appalling state of affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted.
I am very sorry that your brief association with the GWPF has, as a result of the disgraceful behaviour of others, caused you such distress.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Lawson, Chairman, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
[/QUOTE]
His work wasn't published because it didn't pass peer review and he issued a statement saying that "I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests.
So he has an opinion on a denier site about politics and science. Remind me where the conspiracy is?
You should read the corvette forum when you get a chance. Its actually sad. They flat out make stuff up and eviscerate you if you call them out on it. Someone said that volcanos put out over 20x more Co2 than humans. I said that wasn't true and provided numerous studies contradicting him. Everyone started calling me a liberal hack and that those studies were BS because his statement was common knowledge.
Makes me sad when people deliberately choose to be ignorant.
Originally posted by newf: You seem to like to throw out videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson on other subjects to support your opinions. Do you not agree with him on this subject?
You like to call out other people's sources for not being valid or verifiable but you don't quote your own. Your post is nothing more than hearsay without a verifiable source. Even if verified as an accurate quote from him, in the past you have discounted a source because they weren't a climatologist. NDT isn't a climatologist, therefore by your own standards his opinions hold no value with regard to climate change. You should hold yourself to the same standards you want to hold others.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-06-2014).]
You like to call out other people's sources for not being valid or verifiable but you don't quote your own. Your post is nothing more than hearsay without a verifiable source. Even if verified as an accurate quote from him, in the past you have discounted a source because they weren't a climatologist. NDT isn't a climatologist, therefore by your own standards his opinions hold no value with regard to climate change. You should hold yourself to the same standards you want to hold others.
And you like to deflect.
I can certainly provide the source if you wish. I usually try to add them and will always do so when asked.
Thing is though I'm not claiming he is a climatologist nor do I think people should take his word over the experts and climate scientists or the mountain of evidence from countless peer reviewed studies.
Remember know its YOU not me that likes to post videos by NDT that may agree with your personal opinion on particular subjects.
So again I ask do you or do you not agree with NDT on this subject?
Edit: source added to requested post.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-06-2014).]
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 [months] since September 1996 is zero (Fig. 1). The 213 months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.
The hiatus period of 17 years 9 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº century–1. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
And here is the graph outlining IPCC projections vs real data
I can't believe the scientific data deniers are still going at it.
I can certainly provide the source if you wish. I usually try to add them and will always do so when asked.
Thing is though I'm not claiming he is a climatologist nor do I think people should take his word over the experts and climate scientists or the mountain of evidence from countless peer reviewed studies.
Remember know its YOU not me that likes to post videos by NDT that may agree with your personal opinion on particular subjects.
So again I ask do you or do you not agree with NDT on this subject?
Edit: source added to requested post.
When you start walking your talk, I might be inclined to answer your question. If I posted anything by NDT, you would discount him as not being a climatologist, unless you agree with him. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking now.
It's difficult to have an honest discussion with you because I can never be sure which side of your face I'm speaking to. When you have addressed that, we might be able to have a useful conversation.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: But the length of the pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
Those computer models continue to be an inconvenient truth.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-07-2014).]
When you start walking your talk, I might be inclined to answer your question. If I posted anything by NDT, you would discount him as not being a climatologist, unless you agree with him. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking now.
It's difficult to have an honest discussion with you because I can never be sure which side of your face I'm speaking to. When you have addressed that, we might be able to have a useful conversation.
Oh I walk my talk and am honest in my posting. You seem to be projecting in order to evade the question but that's fine, I think that is just about the answer I expected.
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.
Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 06-09-2014).]
So he has an opinion on a denier site about politics and science. Remind me where the conspiracy is?
It is not a "denier" site. I'll give you the opportunity to look at the site and the implication of it again. You did not even look the the URL by your reply.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: As if you have never posted condescending, insulting or inflamatory things in this thread. You can dish it out but you can't take it.
At least you don't contest your actions here are immature.
I'd ask for you to find an example, but you still haven't provided a valid example for the previous request.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-10-2014).]
Article: Tesla Patents To Be Shared? "Elon Musk could do something “controversial” with patents filed by Tesla Motors, and that something could be releasing them for free to the world. It’s a bold move that could help spur a new wave of electric vehicle innovation by the world’s automakers."
"It is well known that bioavailable iron boosts phytoplankton growth in many of the Earth’s oceans. In turn phytoplankton capture carbon – thus buffering the effects of global warming. The plankton also feed into the bottom of the oceanic food chain, thus providing a food source for marine animals.
The team, comprising researchers from the Universities of Bristol, Leeds, Edinburgh and the National Oceanography Centre, collected meltwater discharged from the 600 km2 Leverett Glacier in Greenland over the summer of 2012, which was subsequently tested for bioavailable iron content. The researchers found that the water exiting from beneath the melting ice sheet contained significant quantities of previously-unconsidered bioavailable iron. This means that the polar oceans receive a seasonal iron boost as the glaciers melt." Source.
