waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 there is... another angle How about another reminder on the confidential 2003 GOP strategy memo (re: Frank Luntz) to use 'climate change' over 'global warming'. Really, c'mon... you mean Republicans would purposely, on a strategic basis, intend to downplay the actual impacts in favour of a massaged 'more controlled, less emotional' language - I'm shocked, I tells ya... shocked! 1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources. "Environmentalist" can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly those outside the Northeast. "Preservationists", suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a "conservationist" as someone who believes we should use our natural resources efficiently and replenish what we can when we can. Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency, because we offer better policy choices to the Washington-run bureaucracy. But we have to get the talk right to capture that segment of the public that is willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the environment -- and they are out there waiting. so... of course, in iterative parlance, we have the next progression bringing forward the use of ACC versus AGW... as in 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' versus 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' climate change. So much cleaner - don't ya think? I'm sure you deniers will quickly adopt it - hey? Quote
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 ... we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). one of the single-most soundly debunked pieces of denier tripe. Hey jbg, we could have some real fun here - perhaps you and your lil' MLW denier buddies can leverage the N(onsense)IPCC report to attempt to make a case... any case... for a denier position that counters the overwhelming scientific consensus? as for your article's other reference linked piece of crapola from the Idso clan - we've dealt with the Idso father/brother clowns several times in other MLW climate change related threads... but, again... equally, don't hesitate to attempt to leverage their failings from that linked article reference. Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Of course it is. You just can't see it because you're one of the fringe far-left types. No, no. I am not only happy and willing to debate this very subject meaningfully--using evidence through the channel of an institutional analysis, strongly influenced by Chomsky and Herman's remarkable work on this subject, though my opinion varies slightly from theirs--I have repeatedly tried to engage people in this debate. The offer is always refused. And that's because those who assert a "left-leaning media" have not seriously thought about the subject at all. They repeat exactly what they've heard, nothing more...and they've heard very little, beyond the bland and information-less claim itself. I'm willing (though it should be in its own thread, not this one). You can have the first post, the fist punch, if you will. Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) It's also an ideology. And since the overwhelming number of journalists are left-leaning, their bias usally comes through their reporting. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's natural to have opinions on certain issues. And one of them is so-called climate change. They're Establishment institutions that very naturally are supportive of power. As Michael H. said, left or right is not very relevant. At most, ideology it is oe of Chomsky/Herman's "five filters." You think it's all that matters, thus ignoring entirely the institutional aspects. Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GostHacked Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 because it's an oversimplification...CC covers more variables, more rain or less rain, hotter or cooler, all scenarios are possible in different regions... That seems rather convenient... rain or no rain, hot or cold ..... to cover all scenarios, more like covering their asses. Quote
jbg Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Posted February 11, 2011 one of the single-most soundly debunked pieces of denier tripe. Hey jbg, we could have some real fun here - perhaps you and your lil' MLW denier buddies can leverage the N(onsense)IPCC report to attempt to make a case... any case... for a denier position that counters the overwhelming scientific consensus? as for your article's other reference linked piece of crapola from the Idso clan - we've dealt with the Idso father/brother clowns several times in other MLW climate change related threads... but, again... equally, don't hesitate to attempt to leverage their failings from that linked article reference. Translate into either Canadian or English please? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Translate into either Canadian or English please? uhhh... what's the matter... ya deef man? How about this translation: Ya gots nuthin! you link to an article that presumes to impress/impact the U.S. Congress referencing two denier linkages; one to the soundly discredited, many times over, "NIPCC" report, the other to a piece of newly minted genuine crapola from the, as I said, Idso clan (if you don't know what the "NIPCC" report is... or who the Idso's are... you shouldn't be asking for said translation - hey?) Quote
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 speaking of letters to the U.S. Congress... a couple more, 'hot off the presses'... specifically targeted against proposed Republican legislation intended to 'rollback' the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and U.S. EPA pursuits related to regulating CO2 emissions... and gut other aspects of the existing U.S. Clean Air Act. To that end, the respective letters signed by 2000 health professionals and 2500 scientists: Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act February 2011Dear Congress, We, the undersigned, urge you to support the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority under the Clean Air Act to take action that will protect public health and address global warming. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that global warming emissions are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Subsequently, the EPA performed an exhaustive review of the relevant scientific research and determined that global warming emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the CAA. Because the EPA’s finding is based on solid science, any effort to prevent or delay the agency from taking action to reduce global warming emissions is a rejection of that science. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that climate change poses a clear threat to public health. Numerous scientific studies, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and the National Academy of Sciences’ report America’s Climate Choices, show that if heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, global warming is likely to cause more extreme heat in our cities, severe water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts from sea level rise, and extreme weather. The economic and social costs of such impacts are potentially calamitous. The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth. As the EPA ruling now states, global warming regulation will apply only to the biggest sources of these emissions (such as large coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, and cement plants) while exempting small businesses and homeowners. This is a practical, fair, and effective way to target the biggest sources of pollution, which together account for 70 percent of the nation’s global warming emissions from stationary sources. By targeting the oldest, dirtiest, and most inefficient power plants, these regulations can help transition our energy system to a cleaner, healthier, and more efficient one without sacrificing reliability or affordability. Congress should work to pass a comprehensive climate and energy policy based on robust science and economics that will curb global warming, save consumers money, and create jobs. In the meantime, we urge you to oppose attacks on the Clean Air Act by respecting the scientific integrity of the EPA’s endangerment finding, and the agency’s authority to act based on this finding. ============================================================================================================================== Health Professionals Statement on the Clean Air Act February 9, 2011U.S. House of Representatives - Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative: As health and medical professionals, we are keenly aware of the health impacts of air pollution. Air pollution is linked to a wide range of health consequences including cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes. The Clean Air Act guarantees all Americans, especially the most vulnerable, air that is safe and healthy to breathe. Despite tremendous air pollution reductions, more progress is needed to fulfill this promise. Please support the full implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act. Throughout its four decade history protecting the public from air pollution, the Clean Air Act has enjoyed strong bi-partisan support. The original Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments received overwhelming votes in Congress. This landmark public health law directed the Environmental Protection Agency to protect health and the environment from air pollution. The result is saved lives and improved quality of life for millions of Americans. But the job is not finished. Communities across the nation still suffer from poor air quality. Low income families face the impacts of toxic air pollution every day. From smog causing asthma attacks to toxic mercury harming children's neurological development, far too many people face a constant threat from the air they breathe and the impacts of climate change. Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans. hey jbg... do you need either of these letters translated for you? Quote
GostHacked Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 speaking of letters to the U.S. Congress... a couple more, 'hot off the presses'... specifically targeted against proposed Republican legislation intended to 'rollback' the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and U.S. EPA pursuits related to regulating CO2 emissions... and gut other aspects of the existing U.S. Clean Air Act. To that end, the respective letters signed by 2000 health professionals and 2500 scientists: Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act ============================================================================================================================== Health Professionals Statement on the Clean Air Act hey jbg... do you need either of these letters translated for you? NO way!! Reducing contaminates in the air will reduce ailments? I wish I had thought of that..... oh yeah I had. Quote
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 NO way!! Reducing contaminates in the air will reduce ailments? I wish I had thought of that..... oh yeah I had. ya, ya... you and a brazillion others not aligned with the anti-science, right-wing, Republican echo-chamber. Given you self-define yourself, ad nauseum, as being the "anti-pollution" guy, I look forward to your thread/posts ranting against the latest U.S. Republican initiatives intended to gut the U.S. Clean Air Act... waiting... Quote
GostHacked Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 ya, ya... you and a brazillion others not aligned with the anti-science, right-wing, Republican echo-chamber. Given you self-define yourself, ad nauseum, as being the "anti-pollution" guy, I look forward to your thread/posts ranting against the latest U.S. Republican initiatives intended to gut the U.S. Clean Air Act... waiting... No matter how you frame it Waldo, you and I do agree that reducing toxic emissions is a good thing. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Waldo is that you? Anyways, complete nonsense. I see you're firmly entrenched in the alarmist camp. I'm glad you stopped pretending otherwise. Nothing alarmist about it. I'm with the science. The alarmism is to my mind, about the projected results of warming. As I indicated, there may be a point there but the anti-alarmists or whatever you want to call them have to find a legitimate vehicle for conveying their message. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 It's also an ideology. And since the overwhelming number of journalists are left-leaning, their bias usally comes through their reporting. I'm not saying it's wrong. It's natural to have opinions on certain issues. And one of them is so-called climate change. They're not left-leaning, they're corporate - which means right of some in some ways, left of others in other ways. Fox is part of a carbon neutral corporation that offers same sex benefits, so they are leftists right ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 They're not left-leaning, they're corporate - which means right of some in some ways, left of others in other ways. No, they're left-leaning. They vote for politicians with left-leaning agendas, and they support left-leaning causes. Quote
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) That seems rather convenient... rain or no rain, hot or cold ..... to cover all scenarios, more like covering their asses. like jgb jbg is unable to differentiate climate from weather you have the same issue with CC and GW...then you make an allusion to a conspiracy(bold and underlined)...it's quite clear now you don't understand the science... Edited February 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) no climate change became the recognized term because global warming was an inaccurate/misleading term...and it was officially CC in 1988 long before 99% of the population had ever heard of it... Amazing that you would finally admit that. Al Gore's movie - only 5 years ago - had "Global Warming" as it's centerpiece. Arguably the largest piece of alarmist propaganda - and you now admit that it's central descriptive term was inaccurate/mis-leading. I agree with you on that one. Edited February 11, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
jbg Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Posted February 11, 2011 like jgb is unable to differentiate climate from weather you have the same issue with CC and GW...then you make an allusion to a conspiracy(bold and underlined)...it's quite clear now you don't understand the science... Let me make things clear: My screen name is JBG, not jgb; Weather is a subset of climate. What I am saying is that these graphs of "worldwide temperatures" do not appear to correspond to any particular weather station. Even if the stations' are warming at different times, you'd expect an overall uptrend matching these graphs; and I have never used the term "conspiracy". What I have said is that there are academic and corporate interests with a huge stake in climate being considered a problem or crisis. To have a "conspiracy" these groups have to willfully act together towards a common malign objective. My contention is that they are all incentivized by the same pursuit of funds, not that they are acting together. Have I made myself clear? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
WIP Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Amazing that you would finally admit that. Al Gore's movie - only 5 years ago - had "Global Warming" as it's centerpiece. Arguably the largest piece of alarmist propaganda - and you now admit that it's central descriptive term was inaccurate/mis-leading. I agree with you on that one. You and the other deniers focus on personality and politics and ignore the fact that there is conclusive evidence that man-made additions to greenhouse gas levels are changing the climate. For example, Skeptical Science blogger Dana1981 has conveniently collected the evidence, with links, in one article recently. Among the highlights: natural sources of carbon such as volcanoes, have been analyzed and added; radiant energy absorbed from sunlight has been plotted over the last 50 years also, so any missing additions to global temperatures have to be explained by the deniers. Also, it's pointed out that global warming caused by the sun would warm the entire Earth, whereas what we have today is a situation where the lower atmosphere is warming, while the upper atmosphere is not....since the heat is being trapped by increasing greenhouse gas levels. So, what excuse do these Republican morons in Congress have now to justify their unqualified support of their backers from the oil industry? Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
waldo Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Weather is a subset of climate. What I am saying is that these graphs of "worldwide temperatures" do not appear to correspond to any particular weather station. Even if the stations' are warming at different times, you'd expect an overall uptrend matching these graphs and there we have it... we're back to your incessant preoccupation with localized regional weather station data. We're back to the most ludicrous MLW history where you repeatedly posted nothing but cut/paste, selected station raw temperature data... reams and reams and reams of raw temperature data... and with your famed and miraculous eyeballing prowess, presumed to eek out a temperature trend by simply looking at raw numbers/data. Unfortunately your eyeballing prowess wasn't quite tuned enough to actually decipher linear trends - go figure! for a lark, for a laugh... let's go down MLW memory lane, hey! Even after I went to the trouble of providing a plotted, long-term trending equivalency for your provided select weather station raw data, you still don't get it... you keep coming back for more, with your absolutely clueless parade centered on a failure to distinguish localized, regional, weather station raw temperature data from extrapolated longer-term evaluations of climatic temperature trending. You're truly clueless! as your two previous brain-fart cut/paste exercises chose to highlight 2 lonely isolated U.S. stations, based on NOAA's management, let's zero in on the USHCN data set and extend that to a processing that includes data from that USHCN data (i.e. the NASA GISS GISTEMP processed temperature record)... as I said, step back and save yourself further embarrassment by reading from the following links. For your edification, GISTEMP has been absolutely transparent in all their procedures/processing... everything is in public domain... everything can be found right down to the most complex underlying computer programs that process the respective data. The following GISS link (or as found within other parts of the GISS website) can lead you to everything/anything concerning the processing of the GISTEMP temperature record... the record processing that presents temperature trends that will include all the data from your ridiculous cut/paste exercise of the 2 lonely isolated U.S. stations you chose to fixate on. Of course, I could have chosen other processed global temperature records; however, aside from the readily displayed transparency surrounding GISTEMP, I particularly like Hansen's attachments to the historical aspects of it, given your past MLW history in presuming to challenge Hansen's early (now decades old) projections. I thought you would really appreciate my selection of GISTEMP. double bonus: I've highlighted this previously and it appears at least a couple of times in other MLW threads... the following NOAA link will also make reference to a recent study, the Menne et al (2010) study throws a monkey-wrench into your favoured Watts/D'Aleo's specious attempts to discredit the U.S. surface temperature record. Notwithstanding the assortment of other initiatives that have absolutely debunked the baseless ramblings of Watts/D'Aleo concerning UHI, so-called surface station dropout, etc. - The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center) - NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis I have serious problems with "overall" data of this kind not matched by "isolated" station observations. They should move in sync. jbg, don't hesitate to indicate what significance you hold for a single localized station amongst the broader large-scale regional and/or global temperature records/trends... you really don't get it - do you? One wonders why, with your eyeball prowess in reading raw data, you didn't just simply offer up the linear trendline... just state how much warming you eyeballed in that raw data! This graphic is a standard linear plot of the second of the two stations you referenced... the New Brunswick, New Jersey station, using USHCN data; specifically, the Annual Average Mean Temperature (°F). My "eyeball" of that plot shows ~2.5°F annual average mean temperature rise. But... again... it's nothing more than a single localized station. As I mentioned earlier, as this data was drawn directly from the USHCN database, processing considerations apply. as I said the last (and recent) time you pulled this same boner move: I defy you to show me temperature records of any one station which has tracked the alarmists' famous charts and graphs. I do not believe these hodgepodge/amalgams for a minute. you need to get your head out of your ass-holey localized regional mindset - hey? Quote
wyly Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) [*]My screen name is JBG, not jgb; name thing was an honest error, not an attempt to annoy... [*]Weather is a subset of climate. What I am saying is that these graphs of "worldwide temperatures" do not appear to correspond to any particular weather station. Even if the stations' are warming at different times, you'd expect an overall uptrend matching these graphs; and you repeatedly post irrelevant isolated weather reports as somehow a significant counter to CC(it's cold, it's snowing)...either you don't understand the difference or you're needlessly trolling... [*]I have never used the term "conspiracy". What I have said is that there are academic and corporate interests with a huge stake in climate being considered a problem or crisis. To have a "conspiracy" these groups have to willfully act together towards a common malign objective. My contention is that they are all incentivized by the same pursuit of funds, not that they are acting together. the conspiracy allusion comment was directed at ghosthacked not you...when I direct at you I'll be clear about it... Edited February 11, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 for a lark, for a laugh... let's go down MLW memory lane, hey! Even after I went to the trouble of providing a plotted, long-term trending equivalency for your provided select weather station raw data, you still don't get it... you keep coming back for more, with your absolutely clueless parade centered on a failure to distinguish localized, regional, weather station raw temperature data from extrapolated longer-term evaluations of climatic temperature trending. You're truly clueless! ************* as I said the last (and recent) time you pulled this same boner move: I just don't find a +1C change from 1880 to present to be that scary. Sorry. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 name thing was an honest error, not an attempt to annoy...Understood.you repeatedly post irrelevant isolated weather reports as somehow a significant counter to CC(it's cold, it's snowing)...either you don't understand the difference or you're needlessly trolling...Station data is a check on an overall, harmonized, smoothed out graph, and if the graphed data doesn't resember a bunch of individual stations I'm immediately suspicious. Also if warming/cooling at stations reflects better equipment or placement. the conspiracy allusion comment was directed at ghosthacked not you...when I direct at you I'll be clear about it... I understand that you quoted another poster, butI also share the view that if not conspiratorial, much of what passes for science is driven by funding mechanisms. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 jbg, JBG .. whatever upper lowercase .. when I look at your name on screen it is all lower case. Just pointing that out. Quote
lukin Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 There are many scientists that realize that AGW is a load of BS. Don't let the ecotards fool you. Here's another great article. http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore Quote
waldo Posted February 14, 2011 Report Posted February 14, 2011 lukin... buddy... this is now (at least) the third time you've linked this same Morano/climatedepot nonsense - why didn't you just bump one of your earlier references - hey? U.S. Republican Senator Inhofe and his sidekick Morano, have continued to bring these lists out every so often... an article that speaks to the first "400 list" - here. Of course, lil' lukin trotted out this same OP earlier in another thread post... he got no buy-in with that off-Broadyway attempt, so he opted to take it into it's own dedicated thread. As the article highlights, and as I said... lists dominated by non-scientists, charlatans, quacks, retirees, politically and conspiratorial motivated scientists and scientists not working in related fields. The breakout detail I reference was in relation to a comprehensive study that grouped one of the latter Inhofe/Morano lists into categories and actually attributed a basis for being on the list (based on past statements or position references)... of the actual scientists that had a scientific based rationale, none were actual climatologists and most worked in peripheral fields, at best. None of the arguments associated with this small(er) group can dispute consensus science. There are becoming more and more scientists skeptical of the human factor. This is a great article. wow! You actually are a neophyte... there's a veritable cottage industry out there that's refuted the previous Inhofe/Morano iterative and growing lists - from 400, to 650, to 700... to the moon!!! Google could save you additional embarrassment next time. I recall one of the more comprehensive efforts, after eliminating the obvious (re: non-scientists) and names that were improperly on the lists (re: protestations from named persons that arose after the fact), worked to categorize the names into a short summary basis... bringing forward, principally, 5 main groupings, 2 groupings that challenged Data and Theory (but, of course, the challenges couldn't stand the test of consensus science), 1 grouping that pleaded to the Ignorance of "we just don't know enough", and 2 that were totally outside the realm of science altogether, (Political and Conspiracy). Of course, the lists are weighted heavily in favour of persons not actually working directly in the related science fields... notwithstanding many 'retirees' no longer even active in science. there's also a veritable cottage industry that's put together support for the scientific consensus... numerous previous MLW threads/posts have addressed this... links a plenty - MLW search is your friend. lukin, I expect your only saving grace is you didn't trot out the "Oregon Petition". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.