|
u4486662
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.8K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:provide proof and location Post from The Greens, my Facebook wall two days ago. Check fucking mate. -PB Can you post it here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
thats weather pal, not climate
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
This is from Jiuzhaigou in China. Visited once, it was really beautiful.It's at quite a high altitude and the climate changed quite rapidly over the few days I was there. One day it was cold and rainy, the next day really dry and then the last day I almost didn't get out of there as it snowed! r 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
wow lightning
never happened before climate change :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
 The thunderstorm we had Sunday night was pretty amazing. One of my favourite things about summer in Adelaide. Edited by mcjules: 28/10/2014 08:36:37 PM
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
omg how dumb is this idiot :lol:
oh dear :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
this always ends the same way
i post an article. i school each of the attackers in the debate and the place goes into meltdown
some of you require some serious introspection
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers is not a good boy.
E
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:ricecrackers wrote:provide proof and location Post from The Greens, my Facebook wall two days ago. Check fucking mate. -PB =d> =d> =d>
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:mcjules wrote:Bullion, there's nearly 50 pages of this rubbish. Everyone knows ricecrackers is full of shit, don't waste your time. stop crying you pathetic specimen [youtube]5JD6ejmlpa8[/youtube]
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:provide proof and location Post from The Greens, my Facebook wall two days ago. Check fucking mate. -PB
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Bullion, there's nearly 50 pages of this rubbish. Everyone knows ricecrackers is full of shit, don't waste your time. stop crying you pathetic specimen
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion, there's nearly 50 pages of this rubbish. Everyone knows ricecrackers is full of shit, don't waste your time.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:
[size=8]Actually we have had warming. This year is heading to be the hottest on record[/size], so far 4 months this year have been the hottest of those months on record. Warmest 6 month period on record from Apr-Sept. Given all that, I have posted a news article 4 times today that says it is not just about years or months but decade trends (with all those pretty pictures you like) showing 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record. Stop trolling, you have seen all of this. FUCK YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING WASTE OF TIME! :evil: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! YOU FUCKING TROLL!!!!!!!!!
provide proof and location i know for a fact that eastern europe has experienced very early season snow this autumn so i cant see how this could possibly be true you're meltdown is indicative of one whose brain simply cannot accommodate the dissonance of misinformation you've been led to believe i've seen this before in other subjects.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then). over 9000 on that list have PHDs thats still considerably more than skeptical science can put forward and its only one country yes your alarmist propaganda (lol 'follow up studies' ) has an answer to everything of course, its their business model to shift goalposts and squash dissent to their agenda Edited by ricecrackers: 28/10/2014 03:57:47 PM And why do bother putting up all these blog posts? You should be posting from news organisations, scientific academies and peer reviewed articles from journals.
Bloggers don't have their credibility on the line and you have no way of knowing what their motives are (or their background). When I see you posting blog posts, I just see you being lazy. Probably just a google search and just linked the first thing that popped up that backed your position. so now you're changing tack because you've been thoroughly outpointed are you now trying to tell me that news organisations have more credibility? i've already debunked your "scientific academy" joint signatory statement and the numerous third world puppet state tin pot academies in the other list peer reviewed articles? there are thousands on both sides of the divide, its pointless posting them as it proves nothing. one paid scientist writes a paper, another one or two agrees. bam! peer reviewed. what does it prove? nothing credibility of scientists says more, the weight of evidence says more computer models are the only thing that the warmists have supporting their arguments. therefore perhaps we should be asking computer programmers what the likelihood of accuracy of these models are, however the weight of evidence suggests not very more CO2, no warming in 18 years nobody is disputing those two facts however what some are trying to say is the warming is being hidden in other places :lol: please, this is too funny. your gullibility is boundless it really is if you want to find truth, follow the trail of money and see who benefits from all of this. its not the Africans, its not the planet and its not you... i can tell you now
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose Let me flesh that out: Quote:Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities too bad that IPCC statement was in 2005 and since then we've had no warming how does that fit with human activity increasing CO2? answer, it doesnt and by the way, the term "likely" does not indicate proof of anything Actually we have had warming. This year is heading to be the hottest on record, so far 4 months this year have been the hottest of those months on record. Warmest 6 month period on record from Apr-Sept. Given all that, I have posted a news article 4 times today that says it is not just about years or months but decade trends ( with all those pretty pictures you like) showing 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record. Stop trolling, you have seen all of this. FUCK YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING WASTE OF TIME! :evil: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK! YOU FUCKING TROLL!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose Let me flesh that out: Quote:Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities too bad that IPCC statement was in 2005 and since then we've had no warming how does that fit with human activity increasing CO2? answer, it doesnt and by the way, the term "likely" does not indicate proof of anything
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then). over 9000 on that list have PHDs thats still considerably more than skeptical science can put forward and its only one country yes your alarmist propaganda (lol 'follow up studies' ) has an answer to everything of course, its their business model to shift goalposts and squash dissent to their agenda Edited by ricecrackers: 28/10/2014 03:57:47 PM And why do bother putting up all these blog posts? You should be posting from news organisations, scientific academies and peer reviewed articles from journals.
Bloggers don't have their credibility on the line and you have no way of knowing what their motives are (or their background). When I see you posting blog posts, I just see you being lazy. Probably just a google search and just linked the first thing that popped up that backed your position.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then). over 9000 on that list have PHDs thats still considerably more than skeptical science can put forward and its only one country yes your alarmist propaganda (lol 'follow up studies' ) has an answer to everything of course, its their business model to shift goalposts and squash dissent to their agenda Edited by ricecrackers: 28/10/2014 03:57:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose Let me flesh that out: Quote:Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth That petition has problems of its own. It only requires someone to have a bachelor in science to be able to sign (doesn't matter what the science background). First guy on the list is a creationist :shock: . Also, follow up studies have been done on signatories and found people no longer agree with that petition (some don't even remember signing that petition). It is methodologically very flawed, even more so to be still bringing it up now when most of the petitions collected is 16yrs old (IPCC have had 3 assessment reports since then).
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
woops! Quote:Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret
This is about data they don’t own, that wasn’t secure, is supposedly available, but they want to keep secret.
More bad news for the University of Queensland. The Australian discussed the issue of the bizarre threatening letter that UQ sent to Brandon Shollenberger when he contacted them to let them know he’d found some data one of their employees carelessly left unprotected lying around on the web. Now the acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor is trying to do damage-control by releasing a media statement, but he’s missed the chance to say the legal threat was a parody — with that easy escape gone, he’s defending the indefendable. Brandon has already responded on his site, arguing that the VC is “highly misleading”: the names of the surveyers are not important (and are also mostly known already), but time stamps, and missing papers are still unpublished, and UQ has not explained why they ought be concealed.
The UQ Statement (quoted below) also misses the point and in so many ways.
“The following is a statement from UQ acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) Professor Alastair McEwan.
“Recent media coverage (The Australian, 17 March 2013) has stated that The University of Queensland is trying to block climate research by stopping the release of data used in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
The data for John Cook’s paper has nothing at all to do with climate research. Cook did a sociological study on key words used in short summaries of papers published about the climate. It tells us nothing about Earth’s climate but possibly gives some insight into the biased, one-sided nature of bureaucratized climate research.
“This is not the case [that UQ is trying to block climate research].
Actually it is. UQ employs John Cook whose main job appears to be to call climate scientists petty names and generally besmirch the reputation of any climate researchers who get results he doesn’t approve of. “Christy’s Crocks” anyone? Cook has a badge for that, and a whole book about “deniers” — just get him to explain the term scientifically? Even he agrees it is inaccurate – but that doesn’t stop him using it. Cook’s main goal with the Consensus Project seems to be to promote the fallacy that science is done by consensus and that a meaningful one exists. If only he had evidence to back him up instead? The infatuation with Argument from Authority is all profoundly unscientific. The University of Queensland science faculty ought be cringing in embarrassment. If the good scientists there are not now, they will be soon.
Then there is a very odd admission — doesn’t UQ know that SkepticalScience is John Cook’s personal site, and the survey participants were volunteers? Do they “own” this research (with all its flaws) now too? Please tell me yes.
“All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.
“Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld.
Angst over the identity of participants is a strawman
The identity of participants is not the point. Brandon Shollenberger and Richard Tol want the timestamps, the rater ID’s (in an anonymized way) and the data for 521 papers that were not included in the data files. They want to look for things like rater bias.
UQ seems to believe this has something to do with the confidentiality of volunteers, most of whom are already identified:
“This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.
Does that mean UQ has an ethics policy of sending threatening legal letters to volunteers who helpfully inform them about data they (or someone else) left lying exposed in public? Is it ethical to store those details without password protection and then hope everyone who discovers them writes to UQ so UQ knows who to sic their lawyers onto?
Brandon goes into more detail of just how un-secret the “confidential” participants were:
None of the identities of the participants were keep secret from one another. Heck, people not involved in the project could post in the same forum this data was posted in! How can anyone claim it was confidential? Did everyone involved in the project, and everyone with access to that forum, all sign a confidentiality agreement? If not, the data was never kept confidential.
I’d love to know if there were such confidentiality agreements. That’s why I specifically asked the University of Queensland for them. I wanted to know what data was confidential so I could keep that in mind when considering what data I should or should not release.
John Cook refused to tell me. Later, when the University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter, they invited me to respond. I did, asking for information about these confidentiality issues. They ignored me. They were apparently willing to threaten me with a lawsuit to try to get me to shut up, but they weren’t willing to answer a simple question.
Secrecy of the surveyors was apparently never the point. So what is? It’s hard to believe the secrets of the timestamps and rater ID’s could generate worse publicity for UQ and the 97% Consensus study than what the clumsy legal threats are achieving.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/uni-queensland-defends-legal-threats-over-climate-data-they-want-to-keep-secret/
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA climate change is real... no shit sun is hot water is wet what a stupid comment...meanwhile you ignore the list of thousands of scientists on the skeptical side of AGW why, because this is like supporting a football team to you. you just want to win... however you're supporting the side that is going to make you lose
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life What was that you said before..? ricecrackers wrote:...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks :lol: you started along that line, I merely played along and put you on show remember? You put me on show? I'm sorry, I missed that...
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:54 = the whole world in your mind :d LOL did you even look at the list of dubious academies they roped in? Quote:• TWAS - The academy of sciences for the
developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• The National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology
(ASRT) Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• The Academy of Athens, Greece
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• The Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
• Science Council of Japan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Latvian Academy of Sciences
• Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academy of Sciences of Moldova
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of Mozambique
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
• Romanian Academy
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, United Kingdom
• US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
• Latin American Academy of Sciences I thought you might nit pick (what do you have against your own national academy of science), hence the 3 references to cover as many bases. If you want the major ones, the second link(again: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf) is as clear as can be. Quote:Climate change is real Signed by: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil Royal Society of Canada, Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Academié des Sciences, France Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany Indian National Science Academy, India Accademia dei Lincei, Italy Science Council of Japan, Japan Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Royal Society, UK National Academy of Sciences, USA Which do you see as the most likely reason for their position: A) They know what they are talking about (and their warnings we should heed) B) They are not scientifically literate C) It's a conspiracy to redistribute wealth D) They all have shares in renewable energy
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
meanwhile http://www.petitionproject.org/there are a lot of 'scientists' in the entire world. the above petition demonstrates that however skepticalscience only has a few thousand who were willing to put their name to promoting their 97% myth
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
54 = the whole world in your mind :d LOL did you even look at the list of dubious academies they roped in? Quote:• TWAS - The academy of sciences for the
developing world
• Albanian Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences, Argentina
• The National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
• Australian Academy of Science
• Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
• Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
• Academia Chilena de Ciencias
• Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
• Academy of Scientific Research and Technology
(ASRT) Egypt
• The Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science
and Letters
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• The Academy of Athens, Greece
• Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales
de Guatemala
• Indian National Science Academy
• The Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)
• Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• Royal Irish Academy
• Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
• Science Council of Japan
• Islamic World Academy of Sciences
• African Academy of Sciences
• The Korean Academy of Science and Technology
• National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
• Latvian Academy of Sciences
• Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
• Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
• Academy of Sciences of Moldova
• Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of Mozambique
• The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
• Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
• Romanian Academy
• Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
• Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Turkish Academy of Sciences
• The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• The Royal Society, United Kingdom
• US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
• Latin American Academy of Sciences
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:lol @ "every other major scientific society/academy"
prove it A joint statement by 54 of the world’s science academies http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=10070Another joint statement: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdfThis is more thorough list (you can double check each if you like): http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:bail out?
i thought this thread was about climate change fact or fiction... not Benjamin's personal life What was that you said before..? ricecrackers wrote:...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks :lol: you started along that line, I merely played along and put you on show remember?
|
|
|
|