Climate scientists face death threats, organized harassment

[Sociobiology]

Climates change.
Has since before we could sail the ocean.

except it is not following an UNNATURAL pattern, which by itself would be fine if it was not a harmful pattern on top of that.

http://www.earthtosky.org/data/images/climate/Natural_Climate_Influence_on_Global_Temperature_Change_Graph.png

[Aggicificicerous]

no, as opposed to talking candidly among themselves. see, the beauty of science is that you can't really steer the research. because if you try, somebody else will figure out what you're up to, make you look foolish, and get themselves fame and prestige and a gig at a great institution doing whatever they want.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Most concerning of which is the assumption that the scientific community can't entrench enough bias to prevent someone who "figures out what they're up to" from making the subject of their accusations "look foolish."

Why do all your posts seem to be hinting that there is some global conspiracy between scientists to fabricate data and suppress dissent? Just come out with it and tell us why anyone should take your claims seriously, because your smug little semi-accusations are annoying.

[Gauthier]

Fixed.


It's another proof that Europe is full of pinko sissy athiest babyeating COMMIENAZI BRONY ANTICHRISTIAN M00ZLEM TERRORIST CLIMATIST UNAMERICAN FAG ENABLORZ!

Er.

Yeah.

...What's a fag enabler?
It sounds vaguely kinky.

It's a British cigarette vendor.

[Norsklow]

1] Burnt timber would replace burnt oil.

you still have to release just as much CO2 for the same amount of energy, so it is not carbon capture.
actually you have to release even more because wood burns at low energy because of its water content.

and wood cannot replace oil for it's single biggest use, mobile engines. If you could turn the wood into a liquid fuel however...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/rainforest-fung/

I'm thinking in terms of 3X cubic metres captured, 1X cubic meters sold for fuel,and the proceeds paying for more acreage.

[Sociobiology]

you still have to release just as much CO2 for the same amount of energy, so it is not carbon capture.
actually you have to release even more because wood burns at low energy because of its water content.

and wood cannot replace oil for it's single biggest use, mobile engines. If you could turn the wood into a liquid fuel however...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/rainforest-fung/

I'm thinking in terms of 3X cubic metres captured, 1X cubic meters sold for fuel,and the proceeds paying for more acreage.

what are you doing with the other 2X cubic meters?
forests are not carbon sequesters, only new forest is, once a forest is up it is carbon neutral. if you covered the entire planet with forest it would not sequester that much carbon.