Well, I refused radiation and chemo in favor of Phoenix Tears, Indica oil, and no longer have cancer. The results made a friend of mine opt out of mainstream medicine in regards to his lung cancer, and he is cancer free today. We were both told by mainstream medicine to forget about using the indica oil, a concentrated extract, and we are both alive and very well today. So, does that answer your question? Although I do use mainstream medicine as well, on other things. Yet I am a pragmatist. If something works, and it did, I will use and promote what I have personally seen to work in two cases. In regards to AGW, the science was corrupted by politics, and factually this science is too far incomplete in understanding of the causal factors involved in climate change to yield the cries of certainty that we hear. Then there is the fudging that went on, another red flag. And the inability to create accurate predictive models, which would show the understanding is sufficient to render conclusions. Yet apparently the understanding is far from sufficient. Then there is the absence of contrary, credible voices, and if one even brings it up, the name calling begins. Science deniers, and so on. Or worse. All of these things, and more, are red flags. And incoherence in the research have popped up, but in science such incoherence that would question understanding are set aside, to be studied later on, and then never get brought up again. I doubt that climate science is in a position, to make the claims they have made. I think the injection of money and politics has corrupted the science. The absence of credible contrary voices that would question the research and conclusions is not found in any other science, but it is present in this one. Red Flag. And then there is the fact that only the redistribution of vast amounts of money, over time, has been offered up as a way to address co2, while rain forest deforestation continues at alarming rates. No mention of worldwide land management to extract co2. And yet we are told co2 is a serious problem. Red Flag. So, what would happen if we cut down all of the forests? Would co2 rise? And if it would rise, then why are we not working hard to stop deforestation, and to add flora in a monumental fashion to the ecosystem? Well, if you can't redistribute money in your scheme, there is no need for any other ways to pull down co2. So, clearly co2 must not be the doom and gloom gas we are being told it is. For if we cannot redistribute vast sums of money from the non elites, we must not have a co2 problem.
Yes, I have no doubt that the ecolytes squawking about 97% are much higher now. It would be hard, at this point, to be any more doped up. http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
Then you have a lot of studies to debunk because studies show a 90-100% support from climate scientists with 97% being the average. You have 7 studies to debunk. Start debunking.
No one is saying that they do not kill birds but that birds also die from domestic cats, farm pesticides and especially tall buildings And WAAAAY more will die it global warming continues
The three so called peer reviewed articles are not available through the links and one went to the Heartland institute - a very well known astroturf site The rest are OP Eds - so not a peer review
Search It! Israel has experienced a measurable cooling while its' neighbors are warming. Got Reforestation? And no one addresses building materials that act as "heat sinks". Meanwhile, Los Angeles is coating some asphalt roads to make them less Heat Sink. And no one ever addresses these issues of Global Warming / Climate Change,
Just because you are not aware of it and prefer the least coverage and most manipulated record doesn't change the facts.
Actually I looked it up in the National Centers of Environmental Information, typed in the time period and got my graph. Its data comes from land and ocean measurement data. This data comes from the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) data set and International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS), which have data from 1880 to the present. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global The problem with data that show the hiatus is that none of them show any temperature data past 2013 and usually only include satellite data far out in space instead of actual measurements on earth. They only cherrypick the satellite data since it shows the least warming. They also cherry pick the 1998-2013 time period since it shows the unusually high temperatures in 1998 and 1999 with no context of what came before compared to the 2000s data to give the illusion of no warming while ignoring the very warm years after 2013.
How do you know the NOOA data has poor coverage and manipulated data? Wouldn't it be career ending to publicly publish obviously manipulated data? How do you know any data you have showing a hiatus doesn't have bad or manipulated data and has good coverage?
No because anecdotal evidence from an anonymous source on the internet does not a research paper make You both got lucky - I have case study after case study of people using "alternative medicine" who died in a DREADFUL state - faster than they should have in more pain than they should have and in some cases from Bizarre and weird overdose/side effects Now have you actually LOOKED I mean LOOKED at the research for climate change - it is there you know and just because you yourself have not seen it does not mean it does not exist BTW there is a standing $10,000 reward for anyone proving that Homeopathy works
