Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites   Post new thread Poll:
Author: Subject: Increase in forested land thought to be benefit of CO2
scholar
Knowledge of Ages
*******


Avatar


Posts: 32205
Registered: 14-10-2004
Location: Illinois
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: pensive

[*] Post 507847 posted on 29-5-2017 at 19:13 Reply With Quote
Increase in forested land thought to be benefit of CO2



Link

Read down into the article to get the information about the solar cycle which may be resulting in less heat into the earth's biosphere from 2020-2053.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
marymary100
Underwater Plumber
********


Avatar


Posts: 32266
Registered: 9-5-2004
Location: Scotia
Theme: Iconic
Member Is Online

Mood: fact me

[*] Post 507848 posted on 29-5-2017 at 20:14 Reply With Quote


Consider the source - over 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel lobby. He's a well known global warming contrarian. The Cato Institute is associated with the Koch Brothers and anti-big Government, anti-child labour laws, anti-welfare, anti-public services, anti-universal health care.


Turkeys continue to vote for Christmas...
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
scholar
Knowledge of Ages
*******


Avatar


Posts: 32205
Registered: 14-10-2004
Location: Illinois
Theme: KF Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline

Mood: pensive

[*] Post 507849 posted on 29-5-2017 at 20:38 Reply With Quote


The key question is not, "What is the source?" but rather, "What is the truth?"

People who subscribe to the man-made global warming hoax were revealed to have changed the data to conform to their theory. Do you then say that every global warming alarmist should be ignored?

Funding from sources other than the government hacks who are pushing for anti-CO2 legislation which enriches their buddies is a good thing. Let those who profit from other energy sources do so in honest economic competition, instead of picking the pockets of poor people to subsidize or mandate more expensive alternatives to oil and natural gas.

It's not a bad thing for a scientist to hold contrary views when the data supports him. I saw a television program interviewing various research scientists who were driving old cars and struggling economically. They weren't getting the huge government grants that the alarmists get for their programs that look for data to prop up man-made global warming theories, but they were doing honest work.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User
Post new thread Poll:

Guest Notice
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.

If you want to see the rest, please click here to register.