Voice of reason? As outlined in the article this clown wants to prosecute any scientist who doubts "climate change". He is an extremist who provides no evidence to support the horrible policies he drives in government.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Polar Temps... warming... all guesswork
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Voice of reason? As outlined in the article this clown wants to prosecute any scientist who doubts "climate change". He is an extremist who provides no evidence to support the horrible policies he drives in government.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/18/cli...aks_down_the_gops_global_warming_clustermuck/
Whitehouse, the voice of Reason
Thanks. Good article.
From it...
What does it say about our democracy that such a situation can exist: So many people within the so-called “most powerful club in the world” baldly, publicly denying scientific consensus? And does that ever make you lose faith in our system?
It used to be pretty bipartisan. You know, Lieberman/Warner [2007’s Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, “the strongest global warming bill ever to make it to the Senate floor,” according to TIME] – and that was Republican [John] Warner, of Virginia. Collins/Cantwell [the Cantwell-Collins Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act, of 2009] – Susan Collins, of Maine. McCain campaigned for president on climate change.
What happened is Citizens United, and that disgraceful decision has given the fossil fuel industry such a big club, both in terms of the unlimited and the anonymous nature of the political spending that they can deploy, that it has shut down the Republican Party, effectively, on this issue. So, I don’t see this, myself, as a larger challenge to the viability or the feasibility of American democracy, but I do see it as a signal of what a wretched thing Citizens United has been for our democracy.
And I’d add one additional point, and that is that it certainly isn’t going to look good for our democracy, around the world, as people in villages and along coastlines and on farms around the world really start to get hit by climate change, and they start to look around for an explanation, they see the biggest country in the world, [in terms of] the one who put the most carbon up into the sky, the one that offers itself as the shining “city on the hill” and the example couldn’t take action even when they knew better, because polluter money had so polluted that democracy that we couldn’t take action on time. So I do think that…there’s going to be a significant reputational harm that we’ll suffer from having been so slow to be responsible about this.
1. first of all this is the list is from the site you always use... skeptical science sponsored by al gore.
2. this must go to your comprehension... there was a zero under his name... signifying he had no published peer reviewed papers.... duh.
You decided to "randomly pick an author and expected to find a link to a peer reviewed paper when your website already told you it had none?
3. as an educator at times in my life, I refused to accept the adage "there is no cure for stupid". I have seen students apply themselves, once encouraged, and by the end of the semester appear to be much smarter. I have seen this in 3- 5 the graders 7 and 8th graders and with college age students. It has always given me hope in people.
However, in your case the adage may be true... because I believe the cure for stupid can only happen if you are willing to self reflect, notice your ignorance and be willing to change it.
That you and many of the lefties here could look at the material we present and not understand it...but then not try to understand it... is amazing. There may be no cure for you and your drone friends.
You may be happiest as an ignorant pre fascist drone who sells greenhouse gases for a living.
2. this must go to your comprehension... there was a zero under his name... signifying he had no published peer reviewed papers.... duh.
You decided to "randomly pick an author and expected to find a link to a peer reviewed paper when your website already told you it had none?
3. as an educator at times in my life, I refused to accept the adage "there is no cure for stupid". I have seen students apply themselves, once encouraged, and by the end of the semester appear to be much smarter. I have seen this in 3- 5 the graders 7 and 8th graders and with college age students. It has always given me hope in people.
However, in your case the adage may be true... because I believe the cure for stupid can only happen if you are willing to self reflect, notice your ignorance and be willing to change it.
That you and many of the lefties here could look at the material we present and not understand it...but then not try to understand it... is amazing. There may be no cure for you and your drone friends.
You may be happiest as an ignorant pre fascist drone who sells greenhouse gases for a living.
I randomly picked one
Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by William Happer
This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by William Happer that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by William Happer that meet this definition.
Back to Peer-Reviewed Papers by Skeptics
Last edited:
1. first of all this is the list is from the site you always use... skeptical science sponsored by al gore.
2. this must go to your comprehension... there was a zero under his name... signifying he had no published peer reviewed papers.... duh.
You decided to "randomly pick an author and expected to find a link to a peer reviewed paper when your website already told you it had none?
3. as an educator at times in my life, I refused to accept the adage "there is no cure for stupid". I have seen students apply themselves, once encouraged, and by the end of the semester appear to be much smarter. I have seen this in 3- 5 the graders 7 and 8th graders and with college age students. It has always given me hope in people.
However, in your case the adage may be true... because I believe the cure for stupid can only happen if you are willing to self reflect, notice your ignorance and be willing to change it.
That you and many of the lefties here could look at the material we present and not understand it...but then not try to understand it... is amazing. There may be no cure for you and your drone friends.
You may be happiest as an ignorant pre fascist drone who sells greenhouse gases for a living.
So, to be clear, you presented as a publishing climatologist that denies AGW someone who does not publish. And that pretty much describes your pathetic deranged "argument". Thank you. There are NO respected, publishing climate scientists that deny man made global warming. But you do. Now go away troll.
Last edited:
no troll ... I presented a link and a list from your favorite website... which purported to be a list of skeptics... some of whom... were "published".
I did that to illustrate you were lying everytime you typed this..
"There are NO publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming."
I did that to illustrate you were lying everytime you typed this..
"There are NO publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming."
no troll ... I presented a link and a list from your favorite website... which purported to be a list of skeptics... some of whom... were "published".
I did that to illustrate you were lying everytime you typed this..
"There are NO publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming."
And you are too stupid to know the difference between a "skeptic" and someone that denies it.
There are NO publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming. None.
And you are too stupid to know the difference between a "skeptic" and someone that denies it.
There are NO publishing climatologists that deny man made global warming. None.
For many months futurecurrents and his ilk belittled Dr. Judith Curry for being a "denier"; now they are are word-smithing their propaganda to create an illusion that there are no publishing climatologists who deny that man-made CO2 is causing significant climate change.
The reality shows differently.
while your claim about the difference between skeptic and someone who denies is is clearly bullshit because there is no consensus and the meaning of the word skeptic when it apples to those who dispute your agw lies......
I note you created your recent lie about no published climate scientists... in response to the fact that there are no peer reviewed published papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Which is how this started... and now you are just pissing about trying to take the focus of that fact that there is no peer reviewed science supporting the idea man made co2 is causing warming.
I note you created your recent lie about no published climate scientists... in response to the fact that there are no peer reviewed published papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Which is how this started... and now you are just pissing about trying to take the focus of that fact that there is no peer reviewed science supporting the idea man made co2 is causing warming.
while your claim about the difference between skeptic and someone who denies is is clearly bullshit because there is no consensus and the meaning of the word skeptic when it apples to those who dispute your agw lies......
I note you created your recent lie about no published climate scientists... in response to the fact that there are no peer reviewed published papers showing man made co2 causes warming.
Which is how this started... and now you are just pissing about trying to take the focus of that fact that there is no peer reviewed science supporting the idea man made co2 is causing warming.
So, like I said, no climatologist denies man made global warming. The consensus is not 97 but 100%.
you lying troll fc... here is the link again...
here is just one list...
some of these scientists are published climatologists...
Humlum is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
here is just one list...
some of these scientists are published climatologists...
Humlum is one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming