Rsvp south west nsw dating meetic gt dating in cornwall uk

Then I found out that there was another side to the story, and I was shocked. Over billion dollars has been fed into one side of a scientific question, while almost none has been put into auditing the reports, checking the results, or investigating other theories.

” This site or Jo Nova has been mentioned or referenced by tried to disparage her with an ad hominem.

That’s the theoretical direct effect (see Hansen et al 1984). Often when people rave about how much evidence there is, they are only talking about this direct effect and this minor amount of warming*.

that humidity will rise, stick around, and that water vapor (which is a more powerful greenhouse gas) will amplify that warming (along with cloud changes and other effects). But, there is no empirical (by observation) evidence that net feedbacks (mostly clouds and humidity) will amplify the warming in the long run.

Banks want to broker those trades (thank you, ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching).

Auditors want to audit the unmeasurable, invisible gas; scientists want their rock star status, grants, and worldwide junkets; WWF would like the billion in carbon credits it expects from buying Amazon forests; Solar and wind want the subsidies; Greens want votes, power and the chance to get control over everything down to the light globes you use, and most pathetically, journalists want to impress their friends at dinner parties.

Leave a Reply