08-07-2019, 06:41 PM
(08-01-2019, 11:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Then you post opinion pieces from from the media you claim can't be trusted instead of a single scientific study you've read . . . that you keep telling us to read. Well, I can't read those studies if you keep treating them like you signed some non-disclosure agreement and refuse to divulge that info. And why would I waste my time Googling for articles that you claim can't be trusted when I have a subject matter expert in yourself to guide me in my search for scientific information? Obviously, that makes zero sense so I'm not going to waste my time doing that when I can use you as a resource to get the information you suggest I need to read to educate myself.
I'm not interested in reading editorials. I would prefer to read the actual scientific studies and form my own opinion. So I would be appreciative if you could just refer me to the studies you have read. If I read the same studies you have read then I can read them and be just as informed and educated on the subject as you. And educated us unwashed masses is your goal, correct?
Again, I posted about 3 pages explaining the issues. If you've read any of the science, or care to, go google it and refute what was written. I don't keep a running list of studies you wouldn't read and probably wouldn't understand, anyway. Spencer, Curry and some of the others referenced in those links have plenty of published research if you care to read any.
Spencer's Climate Change 101 (one of my links), is entirely accurate and unbiased which, again you could verify (or refute) for yourself with Google, if you cared to.
Just like last time. Crickets and ad-hominem attacks. When I say their models aren't validated (kind of a huge, monumental deal) and that's the basis of Climate alarmism, there's really nothing for me to prove. That statement is either true, or you can go prove it's not true.
--------------------------------------------------------
