• Why doesn't the IPCC consider Galactic Cosmic Rays, along with the Sun a major driver of the Earth's Climate?

    Why doesn't the IPCC consider Galactic Cosmic Rays, along with the Sun a major driver of the Earth's Climate?

    Through experimentation Henrik Svensmark and the Cloud experiments in CERN have proven Galactic Cosmic Rays have a major influence on the Earth's Climate. When the Sun's activity level is high, the Earth's magnetosphere strength increases prohibiting Galactic Cosmic Rays from penetrating the... show more
    Through experimentation Henrik Svensmark and the Cloud experiments in CERN have proven Galactic Cosmic Rays have a major influence on the Earth's Climate. When the Sun's activity level is high, the Earth's magnetosphere strength increases prohibiting Galactic Cosmic Rays from penetrating the Earth's atmosphere, resulting is less clouds and warming the Planet. When the Sun's activity level decreases, the opposite occurs. The Earth's magnetosphere or shields decrease in strength allowing more Galactic Cosmic Rays to penetrate the Earth's atmosphere creating more clouds, resulting in a cooling effect for the Planet.
    15 answers · Climate Change · 19 hours ago
  • What about "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" ?

    Best answer: I just can't believe it! The earth's climate is changing; plain unbelievable!
    Best answer: I just can't believe it! The earth's climate is changing; plain unbelievable!
    21 answers · Climate Change · 1 day ago
  • What do think about EPA chief Scott Pruitt's idea of having a Climate debate on TV?

    What do think about EPA chief Scott Pruitt's idea of having a Climate debate on TV?

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the early stages of launching a debate about climate change that could air on television – challenging scientists to prove the widespread view that global warming is a serious threat, the head of the agency said. “Red Team, Blue Team” Tactics Pruitt said his desire... show more
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the early stages of launching a debate about climate change that could air on television – challenging scientists to prove the widespread view that global warming is a serious threat, the head of the agency said. “Red Team, Blue Team” Tactics Pruitt said his desire for the agency to host an ongoing climate change debate was inspired by two articles published in April – one in the Wall Street Journal by theoretical physicist Steve Koonin, who served as undersecretary of energy under Obama – and one by conservative columnist Brett Stephens in the New York Times. Koonin’s article made the case that climate science should use the “red team-blue team” methodology used by the national security community to test assumptions. Stephens’ article criticized claims of complete certainty in climate science, saying that it “traduces the spirit of science.” Pruitt said scientists should not scoff at the idea of participating in these debates. “If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal. They shouldn’t be scared of the debate and discussion,” he said. .
    16 answers · Climate Change · 19 hours ago
  • Who started Global Warming ?

    19 answers · Climate Change · 1 day ago
  • Is Ice Core Evidence More Reliable Than Heavily Adjusted Instrumental Record?

    Is Ice Core Evidence More Reliable Than Heavily Adjusted Instrumental Record?

    Earlier this year, an intriguing paper published by Steiger et al. (2017) contrasted the instrumental temperature record (which showed dramatic recent warming) with the global-scale temperature record as revealed by “real proxy” evidence from ice cores. The reconstructions using proxy evidence showed a global... show more
    Earlier this year, an intriguing paper published by Steiger et al. (2017) contrasted the instrumental temperature record (which showed dramatic recent warming) with the global-scale temperature record as revealed by “real proxy” evidence from ice cores. The reconstructions using proxy evidence showed a global warming trend during the first half of the 20th century, and then no significant net warming thereafter.
    9 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago
  • Is the weather beautiful where you live?

    Best answer: Always sunny here in GOA, INDIA
    Best answer: Always sunny here in GOA, INDIA
    8 answers · Other - Environment · 7 hours ago
  • If Carbon Dioxide + Water + Sunshine = Life, is something Wrong?

    If Carbon Dioxide + Water + Sunshine = Life, is something Wrong?

    The two gases that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies as being the instruments by which humanity is destroying of the biosphere are the two gases that give the biosphere life—carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O), i.e., humidity. They call them “greenhouse gases” because they are... show more
    The two gases that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies as being the instruments by which humanity is destroying of the biosphere are the two gases that give the biosphere life—carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O), i.e., humidity. They call them “greenhouse gases” because they are said to enhance a “greenhouse effect”, which in turn they say will cause catastrophic global warming. However, Astronomers looking for life on other Planets use that equations to find the " Goldilocks Zone" for life! Something is not right!
    12 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago
  • Is it true that cows cause global warming?

    Is it true that cows cause global warming?

    They produce methane
    They produce methane
    21 answers · Climate Change · 3 days ago
  • Why are there so many people that believe that there is no proven relationship between CO2 emissions and Global Warming?

    The fact that some Republicans still don’t believe that humans are causing Global Warming is puzzling. I think that it is comparable to the lack of belief in evolution and the belief that the Earth is flat. Why do people (that have access to the same information that I do) prefer to say that climate change is not... show more
    The fact that some Republicans still don’t believe that humans are causing Global Warming is puzzling. I think that it is comparable to the lack of belief in evolution and the belief that the Earth is flat. Why do people (that have access to the same information that I do) prefer to say that climate change is not happening (or the various other strange hypotheses) when they could just as well say that the Global Warming that is occurring is not a problem (which would solve their apparent aversion to government intervention)? This fact makes me second-guess my own conclusion on the subject. Is it a problem with my conclusion? (linear warming, warming is beneficial to humans) If so, what is it? Is there a psychological issue or bias? I’m sure that few are psychologists in this section, but I’m also sure that many of the activists here have an opinion on the motive of their adversaries.
    18 answers · Climate Change · 3 days ago
  • Climate change Is coal dead?

    I am constantly told coal is dying or dead so how come https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j...
    I am constantly told coal is dying or dead so how come https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j...
    7 answers · Climate Change · 11 hours ago
  • What is the motive of the large population of people that advocate for government intervention on climate change?

    If it is not a “moral” reason, then what is it? I have heard the arguments that there are leftists that want redistribution of wealth and that scientists just want to keep their jobs, but this is a massive scale we are talking about here. It just seems like an insane conspiracy theory to conclude that this kind of... show more
    If it is not a “moral” reason, then what is it? I have heard the arguments that there are leftists that want redistribution of wealth and that scientists just want to keep their jobs, but this is a massive scale we are talking about here. It just seems like an insane conspiracy theory to conclude that this kind of malevolent communication is going on behind the scenes, yet remains mostly unobserved by the general public. I am aware of the IPCC email scandal, but I am having a hard time believing that was anything more than trying to cover up the current hiatus in the warming trend.
    17 answers · Climate Change · 3 days ago
  • Why do people still believe global warming is still happening?

    Best answer: Whether it is happening or not isn't the standard IMO. The standard is whether it is significant, and or harmful. Global warming is a meaningless term unless it is defined. It could be just the warming from human emissions of CO2, and that is typical of what is supposed to mean. Alarmists like to have it... show more
    Best answer: Whether it is happening or not isn't the standard IMO. The standard is whether it is significant, and or harmful. Global warming is a meaningless term unless it is defined. It could be just the warming from human emissions of CO2, and that is typical of what is supposed to mean. Alarmists like to have it mean any warming or any cooling or anything. Humans are certainly causing some changes. I suspect we are bumping up the temperature from what it would have been already. It was already in a warming trend for a few hundred years and maybe we added to that. It doesn't mean we have to freak out and change all of our energy sources like alarmists claim.

    Dr. D claims "climate scientists" prefer climate change. That is BS. Leftist political hacks prefer pseudo-scientific terms like CC. As a geologist, I can assure you that no self respecting scientists would call it "climate change" since change is something that always occurs. We do have political hacks that have no problem inventing little catch phrases designed to fool the uniformed. All they have to do is say scientists say this or that and you get Dr. D and Grundoon believing it is Gospel.
    18 answers · Climate Change · 4 days ago
  • Climate Change Is China cutting back on coal fired power stations?

    Best answer: LMAO, Yush and James crack me up. China literally agreed to INCREASE their CO2 emissions until 2030 and James defends them "cutting back" compared to their agreement. Yush actually says "China might do better than what they promised. Something America should try." So Yush is BRAGGING that... show more
    Best answer: LMAO, Yush and James crack me up.

    China literally agreed to INCREASE their CO2 emissions until 2030 and James defends them "cutting back" compared to their agreement.

    Yush actually says
    "China might do better than what they promised. Something America should try."

    So Yush is BRAGGING that China might do better than their current INCREASE in CO2 emission until 2030 agreement WHILE Yush bags on the US for decreasing our CO2 emissions.

    The absurdity of alarmunist logic astounds me.

    Ohhh but don't they get offended when I call them alarmunists in reference to their communistic plans while they spring to the defense of China.
    12 answers · Climate Change · 2 days ago