Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ImNotLying

A one cheek sneak.


37 posted on 11/01/2012 5:46:37 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: central_va

I got an earful from a ‘Weather Scientist’ that Sandy PROVIDES conclusive proof of AGW and, anyway, the concensus among ‘scientists’ is that AGW is really, really true. Man is destroying the planet. AND, this is backed by a review of research data done by UCLA climate skeptics. Well, it turns out that the PRELIMINARY report based on a review of about 2% of the data (e.g. 2 readings out of 100) - says the analysis looks okay - but offers no real conclusion.

It does not address all the falsified data from University of East Anglia, NASA, etc. nor the 33K+ scientists who say AGW is unproven, nor does it address the exclusion of temperature readings from northern regions or from locations where exhaust gases, reflected heating from enclosed, sun-lit sensors, etc. that give inflated readings as well as recent analysis that shows temperatures have been flat for the last decade or more.

AGW is still unproven.


39 posted on 11/01/2012 5:56:46 AM PDT by NHResident
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson