The website? It's garbage. As for green energy hurting the poor, there's some truth to that. But there are also ways around it.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ ... to-8030588

Oh I knew what you think of the website and dont care.
You wouodnt even understand the science they discuss and cite anyway.
Youre just a bandwagon groupie.

Ill look at the link.
Thanks for that.

You wouodnt even understand the science they discuss and cite anyway.

Nope, I'm really really dumb.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ks-carbon/

More miscalculations and "it is not known"s

But yeah, as a sink, the ocean is a significant aspect of climate variability.
And little is known on how that impacts long term forcasting.

Good for a laugh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iBLlksqztg

The next genocide

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opini ... .html?_r=0

Interbane wrote:The next genocide

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opini ... .html?_r=0

This proves CC is anthropocentric and green legislation is cost effective and will save the planet !

Youre a whiz at this.
Thanks, pal.

This proves CC is anthropocentric and green legislation is cost effective and will save the planet !

No it doesn't.

I remember posting an article that covered this.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6 ... 9.abstract

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Of the 4,000 or so scientific papers that scientists have used to achieve consensus on climate change, 38 said we have nothing to worry about.

http://www.techinsider.io/global-warmin ... ble-2015-9

"So, a team of seven climate scientists and meteorologists decided to give climate contrarians the benefit of the doubt, picked half of their more popular studies, and tried to redo them. (The hallmark of a good scientific paper is that it's reproducible, meaning another scientist can do the same experiment and get the same or similar results.)

What happened? Beyond being unable to replicate most of the results, the team discovered major flaws in the papers. In fact, many papers left out essential data, and some even ignored basic physics."