June 17th, 2015
^ This is made up.
- 1. claiming scientists are failing to correct the data for urban island effect means you're a troll?
- 2. incompetence is exclusive to one side?
- 3. do you have a list of those being funded to instill anti-science propaganda? Proof of the funding? Or is this an unfounded accusation based on an assumption?
- 4. why is it okay to accuse one side of being bought with money, but not the other? US Climate Science research spending is in the Billions of dollars.
How much of the surface of the earth was already covered with ice/snow -unknown
How much of an increase in annual cloud cover over non-ice/snow regions did the planet experience during this event -unknown
How accurate are the ice cores in capturing relatively short events measuring hundreds, not thousands of years -unknown
How much variation was there during this event in terms of the strength of the field -unknown I would prefer to not draw any conclusions from what little data we have of this event. We have the technology to measure GCR's, and we have the technology to measure cloud cover. Let's verify the theory of GCR's and cloud formation, let's quantify it, and then let's see if we can accurately predict cloud cover and irradiance fluctuations based on this data.
Q4 2015: positive cashflow of $76Million versus a negative cashflow of 784Million in Q4 2014
Q4 2015: cash and investments of $3.27 billion, up $608Million from Q4 2014
Q4 2015: earnings of $0.04 per share, versus loss of $0.08 per share in Q4 2014
I would say the original claim of them pulling out of a nosedive would be accurate. It doesn't mean they're flying high again, but they did manage to generate some positives.
"Many of the world’s top scientists have challenged his research. Dennis vanEngelsdorp called Lu’s first study “an embarrassment” while Scott Black, executive director of the bee-hugging Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, characterized it as fatally flawed, both in its design and conclusions. University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences 2007 National Research council study on the Status of Pollinators in North America called it “effectively worthless” to serious researchers. “The experimental design and statistical analysis are just not reliable,” she said."
As far as cold in Europe, cherry picking a few UK averages doesn't actually impart much information about what's happening. Wikipedia lists unusual cold waves in Europe for 2004/5, 2005/6, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2012. It's funny you ask me to stick to actual science and data, when I'm the one who pointed out that the actual science and data overwhelmingly support the case that neonics likely aren't the cause of CCD. You sound like a Greenpeace brainwashed whacko who refuses to examine the evidence. Enjoy your envirocult worshipping, I'll stick with the science that's enabled our society to feed 7 billion people worldwide and land rovers on Mars.