You bring up some good points, actually. But I don't understand why you are so reluctant to see that renewables can be economically good for the country.
-
-
Good Skeptic Claim: IPCC has been centered around support for the hypothesis of AGW. Because of this, there is much less research on climate variability in natural processes. Natural processes play a role in global temperature changes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Skeptic Claim: Climate Sensitivity (ECS) may be a lot less than we thought, at least in the short term. There is some uncertainty on the most likely range of ECS (expected warming if we double atmos CO2 above pre-industrial times).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It reminds me of the George Soros issue (is he good, bad, or evil). To summarize the debate, Climate change advocates say they took some measurements, and determined that the activities of people are making the climate bad.
-
If you question the results, you are demonized and they will do their best to shut you up. So like Soros, it doesn't really seem to pass the transparency test.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's not even a specific claim: checking on sea level at stations vs delirious prediction of doom. That part is clearly sick science and media so that taints the rest dramatically to me. Now I sure would like to see Heller's points actually discussed. Harder than you'd thought!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.