The left is teetering on the edge of fascism on this issue…
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/s...oliticians-who-question-climate-change-video/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/s...oliticians-who-question-climate-change-video/
The left is teetering on the edge of fascism on this issue…
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/20/s...oliticians-who-question-climate-change-video/
Perhaps suing those who argue for wind and solar subsidies as a solution would then also be in order, or those who jump up and down about climate change and then argue against fracking……. or perhaps those who have a car with more than 4 cylinders because you don't really believe in global warming if you do….That's pretty extreme, but perhaps not far off the mark. Probably they should just be sued, like the tobacco industry was sued for damages.
Since climate change extreme weather is already causing us 100s of billions in damages a year now, suing those who falsely argue that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening and work towards continuing the same behaviour, taking money from fossil fuel funds to spout disinformation is reasonable.
For idiots like moviefan, who aren't smart enough to know they are being suckered, public shaming should be enough.
But for those who take fossil fuel money, like those who publish moviefans talking points, they should be held accountable for some of the damages they are supporting.
Moviefan, who seems to buy into conspiracy theories, as he showed in his attacks on the media at the start of the Ford Gawker story.
Well ... I`m smart enough to know that a "decade" isn`t 20 years.For idiots like moviefan, who aren`t smart enough to know they are being suckered, public shaming should be enough.
Actually, when that story first broke on TERB, I didn`t "attack" the media. I said Ford should resign.Moviefan, who seems to buy into conspiracy theories, as he showed in his attacks on the media at the start of the Ford Gawker story.
It's official. Groggy is "anti-science."That's pretty extreme, but perhaps not far off the mark. Probably they should just be sued....
Still putting two and two together then checking heartland for the answer, I see.As for your repeated assertion that the United Nations' IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists" who "take fossil fuel money," I'd love to know where you're getting that from.
I don't. But you keep saying my information comes from "ex-tobacco lobbyists" when my sources are actually the IPCC's reports.So tell us...why you think the IPCC is run by 'ex-tobacco lobbyists', based on something I said.
I appreciate the apology but it wasn't necessary. I wasn't bothered by the Ford comment but I thought I should clarify that it wasn't me who attacked the media.(by the way, I'll apologize for the rob ford comment, I had you confused with fmahoviiich and and a couple of others)
Ah, but your 'points' are gleaned from old heartland type posts, which is why you keep referring back to older reports and calling them predictions instead of projections.I don't. But you keep saying my information comes from "ex-tobacco lobbyists" when my sources are actually the IPCC's reports.
.
You posted in the other thread why you didn't like it. Your reason was they sent out questions to 10,000 or so in related scientific fields but the 97% number was only from a small percent of those asked. Of course it turned out that the 97% was the opinions of those who published directly related papers recently and did not include people who weren't experts.The freelance cartoonist who put together the most recent version of the bogus number (and has never worked one day of his life as a professional scientist) is an "expert"?
That's almost as funny as the suggestion the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists."
Apart from the fact it's total B.S., the reason I reject the bogus propaganda number is because I prefer empirical evidence. As I've told you before, phony claims of a "consensus" are not a substitute for evidence.
To what end?Seems that every day there is another news report about the CONTINUATION [sic] of global warming; evidence [sic] which you refuse to comment on.
Of course mine won't change, I'm right.I'll repeat what I said yesterday: "That previous thread ran for 1 1/2 months and I don't see any evidence that anyone's position changed. I can't see any reason to go through it all again."
....
I expect nothing to change.
http://news.msn.com/world/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-unstoppable-says-nasaWest Antarctic ice sheet collapse 'unstoppable', says NASA
You answered your own question in the first sentence.Of course mine won't change, I'm right.
The question is ... why you think news like this isn't important?
I'm glad you agree that I'm right.You answered your own question in the first sentence.
Au contraire. I don`t disagree with the findings that were reported by the IPCC.Answer the question, why do you disagree with the findings of the IPCC given the disastrous melting of Antarctic glaciers?
The only conclusion we reached was that your claim was based on cherry picking and easily taken apart.The problem is that when I compare those findings with the IPCC's predictions -- sorry, projections -- it is impossible to reach any other conclusion than the conclusion that the predictions/projections were spectacularly wrong.
See post #55.And you're still refusing to answer to why you think the Antarctic glacial melt isn't important evidence of climate change.
Post #55 only refers to a thread in which you left in embarrassment.See post #55.
Or better yet, heed the words of James Lovelock, who says environmentalism is a religion that doesn't pay enough attention to facts.
To discuss the empirical evidence you keep claiming to want? Pretty much every day there is a news story; more scientists discussing the impacts of climate change and the role we play in it and you ignore them because they don't fit your agenda.To what end?....