TERB In Need of a Banner

Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
3
36
61
http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/


Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam
Posted on September 29, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in Sci/Environment // 9 Comments
Global warming scientist resigns after admitting global warming is a big scam
Share on Tumblr
Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned from his post at the University of California after admitting that global warming was a big scam, in a shocking resignation letter.



From the Telegraph

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:



When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
3
36
61
Here another scam by another global warming climate scientist/ climate change scientists!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...t-caught-largest-science-scandal-u-s-history/

Oct 2015
The plan by climate alarmists to have other scientists imprisoned for their ‘global warming’ skepticism is backfiring horribly, and the chief alarmist is now facing a House investigation into what has been called “the largest science scandal in US


, Chairman of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, has written to Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, in Virginia, requesting that he release all relevant documents pertaining to his activities as head of a non-profit organization called the Institute of Global Environment And Society.
Smith has two main areas of concern.

First, the apparent engagement by the institute in “partisan political activity” – which, as a non-profit, it is forbidden by law from doing.

Second, what precisely has the IGES institute done with the $63 million in taxpayer grants which it has received since 2001 and which appears to have resulted in remarkably little published research?

For example, as Watts Up With That? notes, a $4.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to one of the institute’s offshoots appears to have resulted in just one published paper.

But the amount which has gone into the pockets of Shukla and his cronies runs into the many hundreds of thousands of dollars. In 2013 and 2014, for example, Shukla and his wife enjoyed a combined income in excess of $800,000 a year.

Steve McIntyre, the investigator who shattered Michael Mann’s global-warming ‘Hockey Stick’ claim, has done a detailed breakdown of the sums involved. He calls it Shukla’s Gold.

In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496 in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700). Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla’s university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.

Shukla’s university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014. (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013. Combined with Shukla’s university salary, the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014. In addition, as noted above, Shukla’s daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.

The story began last month when, as we reported at Breitbart, twenty alarmist scientists – led by Shukla – wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush climate skeptics.

Shukla’s second big mistake was to send the letter not from his university address but from his non-profit, the IGES.

But his first, far bigger mistake, was his hubris in organizing the letter in the first place. It drew the attention of Shukla’s critics to something which, presumably, he would have preferred to keep secret: that for nearly 14 years, he, his family and his friends have been gorging themselves on taxpayers’ money at IGES; and that this money comes on top of the very generous salary he receives for doing much the same work at George Mason University (GMU).

It’s the latter detail which has led former Virginia State Climatologist Pat Michaels – one of the skeptics who might have been affected by Shukla’s proposed RICO prosecutions – to describe this as “the largest science scandal in US history.”

Under federal law, state employees may not be remunerated for doing work which falls under their state employee remit. As a Professor at GMU, Shukla is definitely an employee of the state. And the work for which he has most lavishly been rewarding himself at IGES appears to be remarkably similar to the work he does at GMU as professor of climate dynamics.

If GMU was aware of these extra-curricular payments, then it was in breach of its own policy on “financial conflicts of interest in federally funded research.”

If it wasn’t aware of them, then, Shukla legally may be required to send half of that $63 million in federal grants to his employer, GMU.

For many readers, though, perhaps the biggest take-home message of this extraordinary story is: Who do these climate alarmists think they are?

Perhaps $63 million in federal grants is just peanuts if you’re gorging on the climate-change smorgasbord, but for most of the rest of us, that constitutes a serious sum of money. Especially when we know it is being taken from us in the form of taxes.

Do they really feel under no obligation to spend it well?

Do they actually feel so sanctified by the rightness of their cause that they deserve to be immune from scrutiny or criticism?
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
I wonder what else we've been fed, that's a scam ??? Finally true people are stepping up.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
Wait a minute!

Eisenhower said beware the Military-Industrial Complex.

WTF does that have to do with GW? If anything, the MIC won't finance climate alarmists or those scientists pro-AGW.

The military needs fossil fuels too.
 

David007

Member
Nov 23, 2010
143
8
18
The scammers are the climate deniers.

So we have a notable physics prof (not a climate scientist) who disagreed with the strong consensus of climate scientists (and that is what it is a consensus - not a conspiracy - see for example http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong ) and resigns his professional association because they support the overwhelming evidence.

Please read the response of the APS to his letter of resignation:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/14/aps-responds-to-climate-change-accusations

Hal died in 2011 so he won't get to see the ramifications of what we, as a human race, do with climate change, but his children and grandchildren will.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,333
13
38
The scammers are the climate deniers.

So we have a notable physics prof (not a climate scientist) who disagreed with the strong consensus of climate scientists (and that is what it is a consensus - not a conspiracy - see for example http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong ) and resigns his professional association because they support the overwhelming evidence.

Please read the response of the APS to his letter of resignation:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/oct/14/aps-responds-to-climate-change-accusations

Hal died in 2011 so he won't get to see the ramifications of what we, as a human race, do with climate change, but his children and grandchildren will.

Thank you David.

I read in that response letter that Harold Lewis sat on the US defence science board. OK, now I know where he stands.

P.S. Lewis' reference to Eisenhower is disinformation if not an error.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
The funniest line in the response letter is this one:

"Gavin Schmidt, a climate physicist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, denies Lewis's claim that research in climate change is congruent with financial gain."

Yes, where did anyone get that idea? Well, maybe from this guy, whose exploits were also described in post #2:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424875/climate-extremist-taxpayer-funded-ian-tuttle
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
3
36
61
Wait a minute!

Eisenhower said beware the Military-Industrial Complex.

WTF does that have to do with GW? If anything, the MIC won't finance climate alarmists or those scientists pro-AGW.



The military needs fossil fuels too.
Yes first part of speech say beware of MIC but second part of speeches also included massisive spending by the domination of science-based public policy by the scientific elite . That would icluded the pro-AGW scientists!

This what Eisehower actual farewell speeches .

President Dwight Eisenhower delivers his farewell address.

Eisenhower's farewell address (sometimes referred to as "Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation"[1]) was the final public speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States, delivered in a television broadcast on January 17, 1961. Perhaps best known for advocating that the nation guard against the potential influence of the military–industrial complex, a term he is credited with coining, the

Speech also expressed concerns about planning for the future and the dangers of massive spending, especially deficit spending, the prospect of the domination of science through Federal funding and, conversely, the domination of science-based public policy by what he called a "scientific-technological elite".[2] This speech and Eisenhower's Chance for Peace speech have been called the "bookends" of his administration.[3]



He also expressed his concomitant concern for corruption of the scientific process as part of this centralization of funding in the Federal government:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

...

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.[1]
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
3
36
61
This is the entire speeches ..GPIDEAL you can read it judge it yourself !!

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

January 17, 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.


It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.
 

exnocomment

Member
Aug 8, 2015
397
1
18
Downtown Toronto
These threads perturb and scare me -

I don't care about "global warming" vs. negative environmental impacts that can be caused by human endeavours. Fracking causes seismic instability. Aerosol damaged the ozone layer. Certain chemical waste increases incidents of genetic mutation and cancer. Garbage island is a fact. Rising sea levels is a fact. Bangladesh is basically doomed.

So it's like comparing the risk of BBFS, do we care about the "potential" risk as consequences..? :p

PS: This reminds me of the former Canadian defence minister that now says Aliens walk amongst us and Tom Brady apparently endorsing (but not officially!) Donald Trump.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
If it's not peer reviewed evidence, it's not worth shit.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" - Phil Jones email to Michael Mann, July 8, 2004.

As the Climategate emails proved, the stuff that is "pal reviewed" in the climate world isn't worth shit.

Obvious examples: The fraudulent "hockey stick" graph and the IPCC's international-headline-grabbing claim from 2007 (which the IPCC defended for more than two years) that the Himalayan glaciers will completely disappear by 2035.

Indeed, the climate researchers' bastardization of "peer review" was one of the reasons for the resignation letter in the original post.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,569
8
38
Wait a minute!

Eisenhower said beware the Military-Industrial Complex.

WTF does that have to do with GW? If anything, the MIC won't finance climate alarmists or those scientists pro-AGW.

The military needs fossil fuels too.
Hal lewis was a physicist who worked on building nuclear weapons and nuclear technology.

Why he wrote a letter about global warming and why it would matter when he didn't work in the field is questionable. After he resigned he took a well paid position at an anti global warming think tank. I am sure that money had nothing to do with his decision.
 

David007

Member
Nov 23, 2010
143
8
18
Informal survey: if you are a denier of human caused climate change, where are you on the subject of evolution? Do you accept the scientific consensus or is that also a conspiracy?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
99,259
26,797
113
Hal lewis was a physicist who worked on building nuclear weapons and nuclear technology.

Why he wrote a letter about global warming and why it would matter when he didn't work in the field is questionable. After he resigned he took a well paid position at an anti global warming think tank. I am sure that money had nothing to do with his decision.
Yup, he was a doddy old fool.

Sourcewatch has a good post on him:
However in the 1990s at a time when climate science was less certain than it is today Dr Lewis wrote a book called Technological Risk [4] in which he states an opinion in line with the mainstream scientific view that fossil fuels are contributing to climate change.[5][6] In 1992 Dr. Lewis wrote "All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business." He writes further demonstrating considerable understanding of the topic "the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide... The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere." [7]

At what point Dr Lewis changed his view and why is unknown. But it begs the observation that if any of the allegations in Dr. Lewis's letter were true then some culpability would attach to himself as a government scientist in his earlier days. Moreover, as the author of Technological Risk why was Dr. Lewis writing as a convinced proponent of climate change in the 1990s instead of alerting the world to the "most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen" ?

The American Physical Society took the unusual step of responding to and rebutting Dr. Lewis's accusations. [8]

Within days of his APS resignation it was announced that Dr.Lewis had become a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation[9][10]
So he accepted denier money and changed his mind.
Very sad.

The real scam in this post is calling Lewis a 'top scientist'.
He was a doddy old fool of 87.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,154
2,508
113
I wonder what else we've been fed, that's a scam ??? Finally true people are stepping up.
Now that people have stepped forward we know:

The moon landing is a farce

The Mars landings are a farce

Evolution is a farce

9/11 -WTC were taken down by a demolition crew with the wrong address.

JFK assassination - he and Marilyn Monroe moved to Tucson were they opened a pizza parlor.

Elvis & John Lennon deaths - Elvis is still alive as is Lennon - both disguised as weather scientists studying climate change.

Size doesn't matter is also a farce.
 

Titalian

No Regrets
Nov 27, 2012
8,490
9
0
Everywhere
Now that people have stepped forward we know:

The moon landing is a farce

The Mars landings are a farce

Evolution is a farce

9/11 -WTC were taken down by a demolition crew with the wrong address.

JFK assassination - he and Marilyn Monroe moved to Tucson were they opened a pizza parlor.

Elvis & John Lennon deaths - Elvis is still alive as is Lennon - both disguised as weather scientists studying climate change.

Size doesn't matter is also a farce.
Your post here is point-less why do you not eduacate yourself on the matter of global warming.

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
99,259
26,797
113
Your post here is point-less why do you not eduacate yourself on the matter of global warming.
From a geologist who is paid by the Heartland Institute?
Really, dude, why don't you ask for Don Cherry's expert opinion next?

Try this, its the page posted by AAAS, which represents the vast majority of scientists in the US.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

Or how about NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/

But some geologist who is paid by the Heartland Institute?
Shame on you.
 

asuran

Well-known member
May 12, 2014
3,102
457
83
Ottawa
Remember these???

Cigarettes are great! Doctors love them!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE

Carbon dioxide is great!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA what a beautifully made commercial from global warming deny-ers!!

:rofl:

I see too many people being dis-informed easily by "top scientists" who have a vested interest (money)!!
People need to learn more on a subject themselves and not rely on information/researches from "top scientist" who are being bought!

While I'm searching, I also found this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmGkxDh9_1Q
Fertilizer!! LOL
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts