DISQUS

Gabe · 1 year ago

Richard Lindzen of MIT ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA

agwhate · 1 year ago

Wendy you ignorant slut... Seriously though you stupid whore, try cramming a little more research into your worthless excuse for a brain. Try reading the NIPCC report - 650 scientists, many of them formerly involved with the corrupt child molesters and killers at the UN/IPCC. Every piece of lying scum participating in this global scam is sucking off the money teat or just in it for power - although there are the millions of stupid fucks like you who just don't know what the fuck they're talking about. FYI bitch, the fossil fuel industry is now firmly on the global warming gravy train because the politicians figured out how to buy them off - nobody left fighting this marxist power grab except for educated freedom loving individuals and scientists who don't need to whore themselves out for money. If your that worried about global warming just encourage the members of your cult to follow Jim Jones example - that should take care of it. Otherwise just fuck off.

Mick · 1 year ago

And that has what bearing on empirical reality? You act as if they being funded by the fossil fuel industry somehow affects the validity of their arguments. Mabye to some propoganda tool that is logically coherent, but not to the educated. I myself find the industry stooges empirical arguments actually more accurate, and arguments that they are stooges will never change my mind on the science.

Aaron · 1 year ago

Peer-reviewed science. Check it out. It's way better than stuff a right-wing Senator puts out on the Internet.

Joe G · 1 year ago

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling

Brian Wren · 1 year ago

Wendy, you assail Horner saying that "Horner falsely claimed, regarding a British judge’s 2007 ruling on the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' that 'not one statement in the movie was supported by the U.K. high court.' The judge did rule that the film contained nine inaccuracies, but Rosen and Horner failed to point out that the ruling also stated the film, featuring former Vice President Al Gore, is 'substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.'" But actually both statements are true. Where you go wrong is equating "founded upon scientific research and fact" with a resultant accurate result. But that is not accurate. After all, you yourself would find that skeptics' cases based on science research and fact to be false conclusions. so your answer answers nothing in the charge by Horner.

You say of Solomon, et al., that he selectively reports ice gain/loss. But the point is, that the warming is supposed to be GLOBAL, so ice gian in one place--any place--is, in fact signifficant. Whether it is conclusive is a different issue. But you, too, seem to want to selectively reject the gains that Solomon notes.

You cite the Heartland Institutes funding by Exxon, as if that seals the deal. Would you be as eager to asign "guilt by funding" to those who report that man IS responsible for warming the planet while being funded by organizations that stand to gain financially from people attempting to halt the reported warming? I think not. In science, it is not the source of funds that make findings accurate, but rather the accuracy of the findings does.

It seems most of your attacks are, "Funded by the fossil fuels industry." But that is merely guilt by association, and seeking to win the day with an ad hominem attack. If funding is the whole issue, we cannot believe what those warning us of warming are saying, since they are so heavily funded by organizations with political and business interests served by the acceptance of anthropogenic warming. We also cannot believe what those supported by the fossil fuels industry are saying. In short, we cannot believe anything that we are hearing, unless the person saying it isn;t getting paid! That's just stoopid...

But of course, if you use that actual facts, you will be left without a case; so what else can you do, hmmm?

mememine69 · 1 year ago

The most expensive secret you’re not supposed to know is that George W. Bush leaves office with the planet cooler than when he entered. This dangerous trend threatens the multi-billion dollar “global warming” industry, adding new urgency to the ritual shriek of “we must act now!” in the scramble to impose a costly regime of mandates and energy taxes.

The global warming industry’s tactics already range from comical to reprehensible. As a result of a cooling atmosphere -- which thanks to the “global cooling” panic we began measuring in 1979 -- you are distracted with irrelevant surface temperatures. This is possibly because more than 90% of our surface thermometer network is in violation of rules for locating the instruments. For example, why are so many now on asphalt parking lots, black tar roofs, airport tarmacs, and even hanging directly above barbeque grills?

Such childishness is only the tip of the iceberg of outrages employed to advance an ideological agenda. Our schools torment those whom they are charged with protecting from abuse, with night terrors among the less egregious outcomes. Their brainwashing includes hate mail campaigns to skeptics, reporting on their parents’ willingness to adopt an agenda, and even emotional breakdown requiring institutionalization.