Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,100
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    97

Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

     

    1. Yet you do not want to discuss whether that "degree" warrants all the impositions being made in its name?

    2. If that's true, and I think it is, in your opinion, do you believe the measures taken and the suffering being imposed on the public these measure have caused, are justified?

    1. Yeah if you want to talk about what Curry is saying, let's talk about it. But the discussion starts out with somebody saying global warming is a hoax. It's not happening... Or at least that's the inference anyone would get from it. Then it turns into well... We should implement a new kind of politics that is more amenable to risk management discussions. And the UN should take the lead on that. Do you see how the conversation switched there? 

    2. Suffering... You have to factor in the enjoyment people get from exaggeration online.

    • Haha 1
  2. 11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    "vague"

    I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

    Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

    I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

    So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

    11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    "vague"

    I listened to the full half hour video, given to the annual GWPF lecture recently.  She doesn't say anything about a hoax, more about risk response, policy setting and priorities.

    Sure there's lots in there you would agree with but lots you wouldn't either such a prioritizing global poverty via the UN.

    I asked how you would make all of the politics better and you said honesty is the key.  Well, to me, you should be honest with yourself first.  Everyone should.  That's why I spent over an hour this week considering my position.  

    So terms like hoax and "bankrupting Canada" Are, to me, every bit is exaggerated as talking about a climate crisis.

  3. 7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
    • .

     

    That's not vague, it's a scathing indictment of political faux-science and some direct comments stating that "there’s disagreement and uncertainty about the most consequential issues".

    According to Dr. Curry, climate alarmists have all overplayed their hand, and they're doing it at the whim of politicians. She's saying that politicians are behind the drive to come up with this so-called "science". 

    Do you understand that? It was from 4 days ago. It's not old. It's not vague. She's not a layman. Her opinions carry weight. 

    What's vague is the connection between what she says and your claims of a hoax. 

    There's no hoax here. She believes that humans cause global warming to a degree. 

    Do you agree with that or not? 

    I never got into this to debate whether alarmism is a thing or not. If that is what you mean by hoax, you're not using the word correctly. 

    In your post here, you are backing a scientist who believes in climate change. 

     

  4. 11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

     I already proved to you that current climatologists don't all agree on global warming. Dr Curry aready explained, just 4 days ago, that the 97% consensus BS that climatards puff about is BS. Dr Curry acknowledged that there may be some anthropological climate change but she never said that it was driving the bus all by itself, nor did she even say that it's a given that man-made climate change is an existential threat.

    Stop spouting BS MH. 

    You wanted to act like all climatologists agreed and that is 100% false. My point is well proven. 

    No I never said 100%. And let me get actual papers Curry has put out since you're vague on it.

  5. 2 hours ago, Goddess said:

    1. I think we should always look for better ways of doing things, that protect the earth.

    2. Do I think bankrupting Canada, impoverishing the world and giving all the money to oligarchs will do anything to affect the climate?  Likely not.  But that seems to be the answer climate people are going for.

     

    1. Agreed.
    2. Sigh.  Bankrupting Canada... that's hysterical exaggeration.  I can say that without saying whether or not it's worth it to mitigate, or do a carbon tax.  If you are one of those people calling for 100% honesty from media and want lower levels of hysteria... just saying maybe your tendency to use extreme terms is something they do too ?  Maybe it's a human thing ?

    And people who are worried about bankruptcy... some of them think we should be charging companies for this (some conservatives on this board).  Maybe Poilievre will do that, who knows...

    • Thanks 1
  6. 2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    1. I found you climate experts who weren't on board with the global warming narrative.

    2. Then you trotted out a BS wiki story about Dr Curry that was only relevant 14 years ago.  

    3. Dr Curry even talked directly about the fake "97% consensus stat" which climate alarmists continually cite, saying that it's BS. 

    4. Sure. When you know their names and google them they come up. 

    5. Try to do a google search that generates the names of climate skeptics. 

    1. Not what I asked for.  And the 'not on board' part... they're on board with the parts you specifically disagree with.
    2. So if you're saying she thinks amthropogenic warming is not real, I didn't see that quote.  Try me again.  
    3. I didn't ask about that.  Why do you keep providing things I didn't ask for ?
    4. Are those the names you gave me already ? 
    5. I gave you the assignment.  You (well, you and Goddess) came up with a few names.  I did know them but I didn't know they were still publishing their theories.  Fair enough.  I would say you won the challenge (you and Goddess).

    The rest of the stuff... I didn't dispute.  I don't think 97% is off, though.  If Curry disputes it, she would have to provide evidence... If that was in your post, I missed it.

    I feel like we did a good discussion here.  I would stay I stand corrected with Svensmark and Shaviv.  Are we done then ?

  7. 49 minutes ago, Goddess said:

    1. I'm just trying to have a rational convo about it.

    2. You brought up rational risk assessment, so I was basically asking where you are on the rational scale.  Worst case scenario or "Let's think this through before we go mucking about."

    1. Sure. Well here's my part. I agree that the pro Climate side has exaggerated sometimes, that the media loves to fear monger, that we don't know what the impact of any of this is. 

    Is any of that surprising, or does it change whether or not we should act? Maybe not. 

    I really take exception with people who know nothing, damaging the reputation of individuals and institutions because they are paranoid.... And these people get very upset. If you ask them also. Then they come back at you and they associate you with all kinds of things that you didn't say. Because they're tribal. They also associate you with people you don't agree with like Trudeau. After all, if you don't agree with them, then you must agree with their blood enemies, right?

    2. I don't think worst case scenario is in the cards. I think it's going to get a lot hotter. I also think that population reduction and lot of other changes are going to make these questions moot in 100 years.  The people who argue the hardest about this don't care about the issues, as much as the tribal part.  

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  8. 7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

    Having worked in risk management and not being a person prone to panic, I prefer the rational risk assessment method 🤣

    My understanding is that climate science is mostly founded on "models".

    In medical, hired modelers generally are asked to model a "worst case" scenario.  Rational risk assessment will then determine how likely that "worst case" scenario is.

    Unfortunately, basing all decisions made in any situation on a "worst case" scenario model, generally leads to.......very bad decisions and very often "the cure being worse than the disease."  As we saw with covid.

    I see the same hair-on-fire panic, alarmism, worst case scenario modeling, rushing to implement measures with NO thinking about long-term impacts.....that I saw during covid.

    I see the same thing happening in a lot of situations because, for some strange reason, we have put an inordinate amount of bureaucratic chicken littles in charge of everything.

    Immigration is another example - hair-on-fire, panic OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!! Canada's population is aging so bring in masses numbers of people.  Zero thought given to housing.  Zero though given to hospital overload, ZERO thought given to feeding people, ZERO thought given to jobs or the economy.  Zero thought given to societal impacts.

    I hope at some point very soon, we stop giving in to the chicken littles - they're destroying us on every level.

     

    Yes, we can't do much more than models in any case. Case. Just like we can't live, test a double-blind tobacco study. It will never be proven that cigarettes cause cancer, as a result of that. 

    But again... You're arguing about something I didn't dispute. Like West can.

  9. 8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
    •  

     

    Go fish MH. Just go fish ffs. Your blind belief in big tech and their scripted search results, plus the MSM and all of their distorted narratives, is well-established here. It's sad. 

    You consider yourself well-informed and you're a classic serial-victim of propaganda. 

    How does big Tech figure into it? 

     

    And to repeat.. I asked you for a specific thing, and you haven't returned that. You're arguing instead that there's climate panic, but I didn't try to dispute that at all.

    Are you just looking to argue about something in this general topic?...because I can assure you we agree on a lot.

    4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

     

    See how hard it is to find any results related to your search, when that search is unpopular with CNN's 

    I can find all the legitimate skeptics I mentioned above. If Google doesn't return any others, it just might be that there aren't a lot of them. 

    Can you try to to put your comments into one post together? It makes it easier to reply.

  10. 1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

    So what's your point? In an election recount 3000 votes were miscounted and that happened both by hand and by machine.

    So how do people know that it shoudln't have been net 3939 net votes for trump? 

    How do they know that the other allegations which can neither be proved or disproved wouldn't have put him over the top? He lost by 12000 votes. Here's 3000 votes that DIDN'T EXIST which they can't confirm were or were not added to the pile.

    How can anyone have faith in the process when it's that flawed? I mean - tha'ts 25 percent of the difference of the vote count. we're not talking about an inconsequential number.

    Surely even your left wing brain can wrap itself around that concept. :)  If you can't even say whether or not 3000 fake votes which were entered into the system were counted or not  - there is no way you can claim that the election was fraud free.

    It's not enough to say you can't PROVE fraud - you need to be able to prove there was no fraud

    Well counting millions of ballots will result in some mistakes, especially because you're dealing with volunteers for a lot of it. 

    I'm confused... The end result was 900 or so votes for Trump, but the district was overwhelmingly for Biden. 

    There wasn't really an impact in this case. Why is it being talked about? I'm honestly just trying to figure out what's being said here. 

    Because it was an error, that means that the entire system could be in error? I don't think that follows. They investigated specific complaints I thought 

     

  11. 2 hours ago, Goddess said:

    Svensmark and Shaviv both satisfy the criteria.  I had followed them back when this topic hit BIG on this board 15 years ago.  I'm surprised that they're still pursuing this idea - that cosmic rays are behind warming - but indeed they are.

     But if you wanted me to look for skeptical scientists, I found them.  Two people.  This is what we mean when we talk about consensus.

     

    So... if there's consensus... IF... How do we proceed?

    For people to make a decision on whether to try to do something about Climate Change, they can either do it out of fear or do a rational risk assessment.

    Given our public sphere, and the lack of trust... it's understandable that some try to raise panic levels rather than rational discussion.

    Generally, for us on here I would say: If you prefer the latter, then I expect you would want to engage in a positive and honest way on here also.

  12. 16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    From WIKI:

    • American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
    • These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").[222]: 95 
    • Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
    • William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[224][115][225]
    • In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.[124]: 25–29 

     

     

     

    This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

    Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

    16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    From WIKI:

    • American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
    • These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").[222]: 95 
    • Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
    • William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[224][115][225]
    • In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.[124]: 25–29 

     

     

     

    This list includes people who haven't published in over 20 years, one of whom died.  The reason that's important is that the evidence has grown since then.  Idso for example, is quoted from a 42 yr old book above.  Several others believe in human-caused warming.  Even Richard Lindzen, who I think I have written about here on MLW, believes that.  But he's the strongest skeptic listed.  His "iris" theory says additional cloud creation will mitigate temperature change but it hasn't happened yet since he published his ideas.  Also some aren't climate scientists, and haven't published.

    Remember I'm talking about the pure claims of human caused warming.  So my question to you is the same as with Dr Curry.

  13. 7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

    You expect a certain person to not start name-calling and making broad assumptions when you do not align with him word for word? Not sure why you have such high expectations

    I'm open to cutting off the engagement with people who want to impose their way of doing things on me.  So far, I have asked for real examples so what kind of poster would I be to walk away from an interesting discussion.

    Perspektiv accused me of taking the board too seriously, but why come here otherwise?

  14. 17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

     Judith Curry. 

    Ok so I started my research and only about ten minutes in, I have to stop.

    Indeed I remembered her after reading.  She's concerned about the rhetoric and alarmism, and as an accredited scientist she is to be believed.

    But I got confused because my challenge was specifically:

    "Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years. Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist...""

    Her Wiki summary says:

    "In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.["

    She's not censored, but also she doesn't seem to meet the criteria I mentioned.  If you support her, then you're supporting a scientist who believes in human-caused climate change.

    So I don't want to go any further until you clarify whether you're fully aligned with her or not. I will continue with the other Post. 

     

    Please note I am proceeding respectfully and ask you to do the same. Given the amount of work this is going to take me, I'm not interested in deep dives that take a long time only to have you call me a dunderhead at the end of it all...

    • Like 1
  15. 1 hour ago, Goddess said:

    The video kind of explains why relying only on "climate scientists" is a bit narrow. Climate takes in much more - geology, biology, meteorology, physics, etc.  Hearing from experts in all these fields gives a more rounded education. That's just my opinion.

    I'm not any kind of climate scientist, but wanted to get educated on it, so I did watch quite a few YouTubes from both sides of the issue.  I like the YouTubes because they sometimes break it down better into layman's terms and understanding quite well.

    The issue is whether the YouTube is itself objective or not. If you through arrive at a topic with absolutely no knowledge. It's pretty easy to get hoodwinked. 

     

    Bias and deception happens, but you also have to take into account that there's oversight in most processes in an open society. Including academia, scientific research, etc.

    1 hour ago, Goddess said:

     

     

  16. 3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

    This guy:  Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Nir Shaviv - Wikipedia

    This guy:  William Happer - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Dr. Matthew M. WielickiDr. Matthew M. Wielicki's home page (matthewwielicki.com)

    This guy:  Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Ross McKitrick - Ross McKitrick Research Archive

    This guy:  Willie Soon - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

    This guy:  Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia

    This guy:  Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

    This guy (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022):  John Clauser - Wikipedia

     

    Here's my prediction for where this post goes - MH will quickly google one or two of these people, find an article that calls them "climate deniers" or some such and immediately dismiss them without even hearing what they have to say.

    MH, if you have an hour, most of these people express their views and reasonings in this video: 

    (But I know it's YouTube, and you've already said you dismiss anybody who posts anything on YouTube.  You've made your mind up already and anything that points to a different analysis will not be something you check out.)

     

    I'm familiar with some of these, yes. Some of them are not climate scientists, others published prior to 20 years ago. I already told West can that I would be looking into it.

    No, Goddess, I will give them their due but I already addressed some of these in the past.  

    • Thanks 1
  17. 3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

    Debate is not what will help. The 'progressives' are in full control of the education system as well as almost the entirety of the media. They own the public forums. They control what is being fed to kids. What is needed is to start electing conservatives who will push back against that, force the education systems back into simply teaching facts, and not their Western hatred and twisted Marxist interpretation of reality. There also needs to be a law brought in similar to the Fairness Doctrine that used to be in the US.

    Sorry, this is another Overton Window/Conspiracy take.  

    As soon as you start shrieking about Marxism, I lose all interest in engagement.

    And the fairness doctrine was dropped because it was thought of as censorship. To bring it back would and Fox News as we know it.

  18. 6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

     It's harder than you think to find opinions that go against the MSM's narratives MH. Go see for yourself. It's because Google is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation network. 

    An interesting idea, but we'll see.  This response is impressive because, in the surface at least, it seems like exactly what I constantly ask for on here - a real response.

    Unfortunately, it's also a be-careful-what-you-wish-for type of thing, because I'm going to be taking a lot of time to look into it.  

    Thanks.

    • Like 1
  19. 26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

    From WIKI:

    • American and New Zealand climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.[222] He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics" [note that wiki goes along with the claim that they're mere 'deniers', and not "concerned climatologists with important opinions"] —with fellow meteorologists or climate change scientists.
    • These included Richard Lindzen ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as “intellectually dishonest” by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at MIT and has been called a contrarian in relation to climate change and other issues.[223]), Roy Spencer (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), John Christy ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), Roger Pielke Jr, Christopher Landsea, Pat Michaels ("long associated with the Cato Institute, he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").[222]: 95 
    • Sherwood B. Idso is a natural scientist and is the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, which said increases in CO2 would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed".
    • William M. Gray was a climate scientist (emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.[224][115][225]
    • In 1998, Frederick Seitz, an American physicist and former National Academy of Sciences president, wrote the Oregon Petition, a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".[160] In their book Merchants of Doubt, the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of tobacco smoke, acid rains, CFCs, pesticides, and global warming.[124]: 25–29 

     

     

    1. Yeah I know that's probably too long of a quote without an accompanying amount of substantial commentary, but it's their own words, and I'm not going to try to paraphrase all of that accurately. 

    2. It's harder than you think to find opinions that go against the MSM's narratives MH. Go see for yourself. It's because Google is part of TNI, and TNI is a global disinformation network. When TNI toadies weigh in on things like BSL4 labs, laptops, etc, their "counterintuitive" narratives/apparently blatant BS eventually ends up being actual bullshit quite a bit. 

    I will look at these too, but remember that I asked specifically for papers from the last 20 years, because that's when there was a decided drop-off in support for the skeptical position.

  20. 46 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

     

    1. Judith Curry. She's not the only one, but Google searches favour their masters, not reliable results 

    1. Ok, well good.  You found one.  Your rationale for there being no others is Google searches? That makes zero sense.  Oreskes published the definitive paper on it.  There's almost no opposition.  I'm glad to learn of Curry and will read up.  But she seems to be by herself, and no Google conspiracy will change that.

    And I haven't heard of another climate scientist who's published recently, no.  Go di8a post and show me to be wrong, go ahead.

  21. 1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

    1. And "climate change is real" comes from a dog's breakfast of liars and anonymous 'scientists'. 

    2. Real climatologists go on record saying it's bunk, but there's no money in going against the Dems' chosen science. 

     

    1. What are you talking about?  They are famous and their work has been scrutinized by hundreds, thousands of experts.

    2. Like WHO?  Name a single climate scientist who has published a credible counter argument in the last 30 years.  Not a YouTube, or a blog post... Not an oil expert, weather man, or geologist...

    You're just blabbering with these claims... 

    Scientists are paid by universities and research grants to be accurate.  A single Climate Scientist who found a credible counter theory would be world famous and wealthy.  

    The fact that Oil Company think tanks like Heartland funded actual disinformation make your comment on the level of troll.

×
×
  • Create New...