Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Could you give me a link to a reputable, scientific, peer reviewed journal, where they've published reports supporting that claim?

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

You may have clicked on it, but you obviously didn't read it. It doesn't say that Yellowstone is going to blow up, any time soon. It says that there's a massive amount of carbon rich liquid rock below it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

We all know as a fact that 90% of those reviews are pure politics. The scientists are dependent on liberal government grants and will lie to follow what ever the political elite want them to say. I am old enough to remember that we would all have been frozen to death by 2000. How did that work out? That was the scientific consensus then. Why did we have a little ice age in the 1700's? Why did the ice sheets melt that covered a lot of the USA? Why is as ice does melt that Viking villages are being uncovered that were buried by global cooling? Why is north Africa a desert now when 2000 years ago is was vegetated? It seems the earth was doing major shifts in climate long before idiot scientists that know absolutely nothing but politics and how to write grants to keep their jobs. It is a hoax as was exposed a few years ago when the scientists in Britain were exposed for changing the numbers to meet the goal of climate change propaganda when the real numbers showed they were telling lies. This is the fact and those who are stupid enough to believe this man made climate change are some of the stupidest people on earth and not much smarter than the common garden snail.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

you have a very funny understanding of science... you rank them right up there with used car salesmen. A scientist's reputation is everything. Any scientist that has provided false data has been literally ostracized from the field... these fallen scientists can only crank out fake-science to support various agendas... and government grants are not as lucrative as the private sector, with much more oversight.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Can you give me a link to any study, that shows as a fact, that 90% of reviews are pure politics? Why would any political party want to spend billions on climate control, when it's not necessary? I remember the hole in the ozone layer, that they said would melt the ice caps and flood a large part of the Earth, if we didn't stop using CFCs. We stopped using CFCs, and all the science deniers said "look were not flooded. The hole in the ozone layer was a hoax". Before I attempt to answer any of your other questions, can you see the fault in their reasoning?

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

A lot of 'scientists' create a thesis and do everything they can to prove it to be correct just to make themselves known for something nobody else could come up with. And when their funds come from a particular group of people, they make sure they can justify more funds any way they can.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

No you find the links. google it easy to find.
As I stated before I am tired of giving 5-9 links to the idiots then they drop off after being shown to be slug idiots.
You have a computer research it yourself unless you are afraid your bubble will be burst and you can't handle the truth.
So you show me the links you want me to show you and I will confirm that yes I am right.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

That just simply doesn't happen. As green has said, if a scientist is caught falsifying data, he is ostracised. That's why any experiment has to be independently repeated, and submitted to peer review. Even post graduate science students risk being expelled.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

I don't believe they exist, so the onus is on you to prove that they do.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Nope on you.
Oh well here it is in a few minutes easily found.
PS, Polar bears can swim 60 miles if they want to get to a remote ice floe and catch seals or whatever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-14-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

All opinion pieces. Not a single study amongst them. The third one looked promising, but still didn't cite any studies. Like I said they don't exist.
Here's an example of what a study looks like:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019616688022
And another from a couple of years ago:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019614564785
So when you do find one, you'll know.

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

exactly my point... so why would a scientist create a thesis that virtually every other scientist agrees with? Where's the money in that? However, if say a scientist were to come up with an alternate theory... I'm sure there's a lot of money out there from vested interests...


it's obvious to anyone using normal logic.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Exactly. Einstein became famous, because he came up with an alternative to Newtons law of gravity.

FrumCA

Mostly liberal biased reporting. The issue is that the original standards that were being taught did not teach both sides of the story. And, if you bothered to read and digest the contents of the OP, school districts still have to option to teach climate change if they want to. The author denies the reality of the on-going climate change debate evidently relying on the oft debated ’97 percent consensus” argument to support her OP.