"Summarizes the science behind climate change "... the articles word not mine.

Sure. I don't disagree with him that the media is capitalizing off the disagreement between the two groups. But that can happen in a disagreement between people not liking child-rape and the Catholic Church.

Additionally he tries to imply that the science behind group 1 is artificially bolstered by the media disproportionately to the detriment of group 2. This would be fine if he provided any evidence that we should believe group 2. But the only evidence he provides for his claim is the global mean temperature, which I addressed earlier.

He'll, he's a scientist. If he wanted to show "group 3" impact on the support behind either group 1 or 2, he could data dive the papers submitted, amounts of data in each, reception of.each. etc..

But he doesn't. He provided anot opinion piece masked as a "summary of the science " and passed around by some organization that likes to pretend it is a university.

where is his money coming from?

I was thinking about that on my drive home.

Ultimately, MACS has a point. This guy's opinion carries more weight than mine on this topic. But in the end, that was nothing more than anot opinion piece.

It's no different than if Tony or brew had posted a video of a scientist from "group 1" "summarizing" how all the fossil fuel and manufacturing interests in group 3 were influencing scientists in group 2.

But both groups of scientists agree it is nothing to get in a panic about, and that predicting the climate is damn near impossible.

I just saw the video. I did not see a written article in that link. I'll have to look again.

denying global warming is a mental disorder.... or so I heard.. 😟

Or a meteorological disorder.

poor CROS.... 😞

I suppose it is critical to keep an open mind, listen to all sources and weigh them on their merit. So I watched your video - that you feel is correct.

Most notable up front is that Mr. Lindzen's criticisms appear to disagree with the published positions of NASA, the US Pentagon, and the scientific community at large. But he is a retired college professor - who has worked for the oil and gas companies......

Secondly I note, that beyond conjecture - skillfully presented I might add - He presented no real or compelling data. In fact his case seems to be based largely on his opinions of society, money and how significant the pollution he has always lived with really is. So my take away is; how bad can pollution really be, and we all know those environmentalists are crazy.

I have to ask who funded his video....Hmmm


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism 





So above are some link you might find interesting.


And yes - I think his opinion is crap.
But at least it is paid for.....

No - I think it would be different.


Because us liberals are Cbid's greatest asset!
🇨🇮

asked, and answered.

Would the next contestant enter and sign in please......

What's My Line?

"I think I'll pass to Arlene"

I had a thing for Betsy Palmer. Arlene was too, how you say...?

Anal?

yeah, anal.

This is too good to leave on that other thread:

Wasn't Betsy a Miss America or something?