Posted on 06/06/2017 9:08:39 AM PDT by rktman
Life in the Arctic ocean is much more resistant to global warming than previously suspected, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Aberdeen.
The study, published Tuesday, refutes speculations that global warming would cause a massive disruption to the Arctic ecosystem by killing off the algae living under sea ice.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
NON print version:
If ocean life was that brittle, what would happen with summer and winter temperature variations? They last for months, and we’re talking 50 to 100 degree changes at times.
Do these folks even have a brain, or were they born without 95% of one.
Yeah, well, when it warms .001 degrees every twenty years, it’s kinda hard to notice...
How can I get paid big bucks to do this crap research? What a racket!
On top of that, single-cell organisms are about as simple, and therefore adaptable, as you can get.
The poles seem a lot more resistant to melting than Gore global warming biased scientists imagined.
No it’s not! We are melting and we are all going to die...
Translation: We need more money to study the problem.
What do folks in Poland have to do with it?
The world has been much warmer and much cooler in the past and life kept chugging along.
So do they not believe their own history or is all this gloom and doom a hoax?
There really is no third option here.
ROFL - It never stops. Always new angles for study and funding.
How would they know if life is resistant to global warming, since THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY?
And besides, it’s CLIMATE CHANGE now!
Phony b@$t@rd$!
They may be totally wrong on APG Global Warming. Would not be surprised within the next 10 years they claim they don’t understand climate and any predictions heretofore were the equivalent of a plumber doing brain surgery with gardening tools, in the dark.
Bret Stephens, one of the New York Times’ newest conservative columnists, endured a wrath of anger from liberals on Friday who proceeded to meltdown after his first column for the Times stated that “climate change” isn’t certain.
The general idea of Stephens’ column was that the science behind “climate change” is not certain — despite claims from climate change alarmists that it is — and that when uncertain science is deemed certain it undermines science as a whole.
....guess the developing (politicians) countries will just have to wait for their part of the projected 9 billion$$$.........
Brvo for POTUS for not falling for that old fraud!
About 3/4 of the globe is ocean vast and deep. Puny collective human effect is minuscule.
I know right....and they say “refutes speculations that global warming...” which is telling. So much of what is claimed to be part of the “science” of globul warming is just “speculation”, what “might” be true...that “some evidence suggests”, etc.. The fact that you can’t experiment with the atmosphere to attain empirical evidence about a hypothesis means all they have, at the end of the day, are “computer models”. Models that don’t forecast, or even backcast, accurately. ...but I won’t ask why there’s dozens of these climate models if the science is settled.
Simple. The Poles have said that the only way to stop terrorism is to stop importing muslims. Poland has a "no muslims allowed" policy. This of course does not sit well with EU globalists like Angela Merkel.
Since there has been no global warming in 20 years, how can they tell?
Hello! Two anonymous sources leaked a portion of a memo they never actually looked at. Sheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.