Last night I decided to take a break from working on my manuscript, and watch a little television. As the screen fired up, an image of Brittney Spears' shiny dome appeared on the screen. Ugh. I changed the channel quickly, only to find yet another episode of some entertainment show discussing Anna Nicole Smith's death, and speculation regarding who the father of her child may be. I assure you, it isn't me. I changed the channel again. An infommercial instructed me that I could have the body I always wished for. For an incredible price beyond my credit limit I could participate in et another great diet fad. Before and after pictures graced the screen. Great tasting food that only costs a fortune was packaged in cardboard. The show made no mention that after the weight is lost, without a lot of exercise and discipline, blimp city will be back quickly. On to a new station, and an unfunny and insulting sitcom about a broken family raising a child. Then yet another Dr. Phil style counselor making a diagnosis in a matter of minutes when it takes most counselors in the real world a number of sessions to come to a conclusion. Then a crude animated show (that poked fun at Christianity before I changed it - snake slithers towards a woman and she cries out "get it away from me, it knows I'm a Christian!"), gangsta rap on the next channel, and the 1/2 hour newshour which didn't hold my interest on the Fox News Channel. Finally, I landed on ABC. Surely they had some quality programming on. It turned out to be The Academy Awards show - Hollyweird's chance to hand out Oscars and pat each other on the backs (The Academy Awards is a close second place in portraying Hollyweird's obsession with itself, second only to the SAG Awards, to be honest).
I turned my television off.
This morning on the radio I heard that Al Gore won an Oscar for his fantasy epic about Global Warming.
I turned my radio off.
Fantasy?
ReplyDeleteSee - this is exactly why I think you're simply a shrill political hack. To you, the issue isn't the environment, the issue is the messenger. In this case, it's "liberal" Al Gore. If Newt Gingrich (or simply insert any "conservative" public figure) had championed the issue, your view would be 180 degrees different.
In other words, the issue isn't global warming, the issue is the political affiliation of the presenter.
Is the world 6000 years old too?
I find it all very odd because Gore goes to great pains to remind everyone that environmental issues are non-partisan. The issues he presents in the documentary are real, are dangerous, and are supported by pretty much the entire scientific community.
But then, you probably have a "gut feeling" that it's all bogus, and science has nothing to do with it.
Umm.. okay.
As an aside, I notice your blog frequently has problems with column widths. I'm not sure if you've tried playing around with them in the template settings so that the post text will display correctly at the top or not, but I might be able to help with that.
ReplyDeleteTom
ReplyDeleteThe issues he presents in the documentary are real, are dangerous, and are supported by pretty much the entire scientific community.
You look pretty funny eating crow.
Read this if you 1. Know how to read.
2. If you can't seem to pull your head out of your Blank.
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth
I know what you're saying Douglas, may I recommend a nice book?
ReplyDeleteTom....I don't care who the heck Gore is other than a fat, annoyingly boring slob, his political party is not at issue here. He comes off pretending to be spreading a truth. It may or may not be. That's where I have issue. Like Michael Moore before him...a bunch of hypothesis and cleverly edited material do not a truthful documentary make.
I see.. Phil's remark must be one of those sorts where the "conservative readers rights come first" type of thing, because it was an insipid and baseless attack.
ReplyDeleteAnd I guess I'm "eating crow" because of 9 quotes from some Scientists that took issue with some specific methodolgies? Yay.. All fine and good. But, alas..
A 2004 survey by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, claimed that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it.
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 top climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. Because this was at the time before the film's general release many of those surveyed had neither seen the movie nor read the book, but all 19 climate scientists who had done so said that Gore conveyed the science correctly.
Much more at the link. I guess the concensus of the scientific community needs to pull their heads out of their blanks as well.
By the way.. I love your whole "Magnum P.I." look. Retro is so in these days.
Incredibly just today there was an article that should send shivers down your spine on this subject. When a scientist DARES to question the holy seat of Global Warming then you better get ready for the unemployment line.
ReplyDeleteIn the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
"Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations," Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
"He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Kulongoski said.
Ok, so no unemployment line, but the simple fact remains that if you disagree with the Holy Seat then you will pay. Good science yea right?
In 2004 Mr. Ball gave an interview to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy which is also quite enlightening:
Tom,
ReplyDeleteGet a clue son, for every article that you put out there I can more than double anything that you can pull up.
What astonishes me is that the Bushiviks can produce one, maybe two scientists' that disagree with the idea that humans are the main cause of Global Warming, while those living in a reality based community can produce the entire scientific community (with the exception of the aforementioned two), charts, and neat little colored graphs with data that can be checked and rechecked for its accuracy, and yet the Bushivik scientists' speak scripture and we reality dwellers speak vitriol.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem odd to anyone else?
Proletariat
Yes, that does seem odd to me. Just this one paragraph totally sums it up;
ReplyDeleteIn the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
I'm rather flabergasted. That's like saying In the face of evidence agreed upon by nearly every cosmologist on the planet, George Taylor holds firm. He doesn't not believe the earth revolves around the sun.
But you know.. that's just me. I'm still dining on my crow.
To specifically answer Tom: I believe that global warming is a natural occurrence, and that we had little to do with bringing it on. Is there a lot of pollution in the air and water? absolutely, and we ought to do our part to keep it clean, but the doom and gloom of global warming is being played by the left in ways that it ought not be. As for whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old? Mankind, I think, has been here about that long (based on biblical texts), but who knows how old the earth is? God took seven days, but what's a day to God, especially before the 24 hour day was created? He may have decided to take a few million years to create it in ways not much different than scientists think, but He could have created it all with the snap of a finger, as well.
ReplyDeleteProletariat
ReplyDeleteFirst off anything astonishes you. There is no such thing as scientist in the Bushiviks camp while the few who are for Gore are bought and payed for by the DNC. You talk about realist, it is not in the DNC, they have always been in the fairy tale land. Get a grip Proletariat anything astonishes you.
Phil
I really appreciate DG answering questions directly and not equivocating. This is a revealing thread I think.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the issue of global warming. I'm confused why it's even become a political issue. People on the right fight it tooth and nail as if the issue were gun control instead of the health of our planet. It's really not a partisan issue, and it perplexes me why we're not all united in insisting that we do better. Everyone's kids will live in the "future Earth" and everyone has the same stake in it to see that they inherit a world as pristine as possible.
I find the arguments of denial odd. It is the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists that the issues are real. The science is sound. And Phil claims that Gore and the DNC are paying off scientists? That's.. delusional thinking.
But, beyond his state of denial is the vitriol with which he attacks people who are trying to ensure a healthier world. I just don't understand that.
As for whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old? Mankind, I think, has been here about that long (based on biblical texts),
In another thread, DG said he was a bible literalist, so that's a fairly consistent statement. Mankind has "been around" about 6000 years.
Scientists have fossil records of homo sapiens dating back 200,000 years. That's not some predecessor to modern human beings, that is our species. Modern man - 200,000 years ago.
And so you would be forced to point out that carbon dating is somehow a flawed science. But, the point is that in viewpoint after viewpoint, you are forced to try and discredit the science.
Is it me, or is that just whacky?
The straw man is that we humans started global warming, which has never been the argument. The vast majority of scientists around the world say that we humans, accelerate global warming at alarming rates, not that we cause it.
ReplyDeleteFirst off anything astonishes you. There is no such thing as scientist in the Bushiviks camp while the few who are for Gore are bought and payed for by the DNC. You talk about realist, it is not in the DNC, they have always been in the fairy tale land. Get a grip Proletariat anything astonishes you.
ReplyDeleteI love how you know so much about me.
Anyway, apparently the EPA, and every other scientific community, be it in Great Britain, China, Canada, et cetera, is being paid by the Democratic Nation Committee to say that Global Warming is the result of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
Of course you have proof of that, right?
Didn't think so.
Proletariat
Tom turned me onto this sight, and I've been watching and not commenting for some time. I think I have to at this point.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming is a fact. It's not a debate. The planet is getting hotter. The question is simply why?
Now, people keep bring up groups of scientists on either side that preach that their answer is truth. These groups of scientists claim that they are right, and give their numbers as proof.
When did science become a democracy? When did the number of scientists that said something make it right?
Here's the thing. Science is about facts. A scientist is right if he has a provable hypothesis with a reproducable expiriment. The fact that the opposition is 3 million scientists that can shout really loud doesn't change that fact. To use a phrase you often use yourself Tom, Clapping louder doesn't make it any more true.
Concensus science is a farse that, unfortunately, both sides partake in.
The meeting a while back in France said they were 90% sure that global warming was caused by humanity. That isn't science. Until you have proof, then nothing is certain. If I was certain that the earth is flat, and I got a bunch of other people to beleive that the earth is flat, that doesn't make it flat. Reality isn't a democracy. Science isn't either.
I don't claim to know what's causing it. And, being honest, I don't know who to trust, as both sides are using deceiving and unscientific methods to try and politicize a scientific issue. Science is definitive, politics isn't, and neither should mix. All I want is the truth, whatever it may be.
Dan, science claims to be about facts, and often is. Facts are facts. But, sometimes science proclaims things to be fact when in reality it is nothing more than a theory, or opinion. Take evolution, for example. Though there are facts proving that sometimes species alter slightly to better survive in their changing environment, there are no facts that support the whole we came from monkeys thing. But, Science proclaims it to be a fact. Same thing with Global Warming. A bunch of scientists have come to a conclusion based on facts regarding the changing climate, claiming that mankind has caused it, but they don't have any facts to support that. The hypothesis has not been proven. You said that in France they were 90% sure that global warming was caused by humanity - that's not 100%, and in order to be a fact, it must be 100% sure. Personally, based on all of the reading I've done, and I read both sides of the argument, I believe that Global Warming is a natural cycle the Earth is going through. Could humans have contributed? Maybe. Is it bad to have gunk in our air? Yes, and we ought to be more mindful about how we co-exist with our planet. Should we go around calling people names if they aren't hugging a tree? No. In fact, where my main complaint is, is that the Democrats are politicizing environmentalism. When they can find a way to promote evironmentalism without unethical tactics, and without economic slowdown, then I'll listen a little. Until then, I refuse to hop on board any bandwagon, especially one based on fiction as is Gore's movie.
ReplyDeleteIf you think Evolution is "just a theory", then you are riding the crazy train.
ReplyDeleteTheory in laymans terms, and theory to scientists are 2 completely different things. You wanna know what else is a theory? Gravity. So if you're only arguement against evolution is that "It's just a theory", please go jump off a builing and fall up.
Okay, I saw that in your post and my head just about exploded, lets see if I can press on.
As for the rest of your arguement, it's just plain rediculous.
You start off by saying it is scientists fault, and then about how Democrats are at fault. Then, you want is to beleive you are even handed because you have read some articles/books/reports/ whatever else. Who do you think these reports are written by?
Then you go onto say that you would support evinornmentalism if it isn't using unethical tactics and doesnt slow down economic progress.
Here's an economic progress slower for ya. Pollution. That's right. You really are trying to justify making more money at the expense of where other people work and live? All for making another buck? I'm sorry, but that is just as inexcusable as politicizing science.
You, sir, have taken my arguement completely out of character, distorted it, and played it off as your own. You arn't bipartisan, and you don't really care about the environment, so please don't play yourself off as such.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH ENVIRONMENTALISM. There, I said it. Does that mean I'm a tree hugger? No. I think we all want where we live to be nice. I live where I live in large part due to the fact that it's beautiful. Everyone in their right mind(not political right, sanity right) should be an environmentalist.
However, basing environmental decisions on bad science is not only morally unfounded, it also degrades the trust people have in the scientific community. That's why people like douglas v gibbs beleive the way they do about evolution.
Theres actually a really interesting speach given to a graduating group of students at Cal Tech. I'll see if I can dig it up. Tom won't read it because of who it is, and will casually dismis it, but for the rest of you, it outlines my point fairly accurately, and is a lot more entertaining I imagine.
DG - it's elementary that everybody needs to be on the alert against "junk science" and "miracle cures" and other various snake oils.
ReplyDeleteBut when 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree, I just have to say, that what you express is a partisan argument, bought and paid for. (Not you, personally, but the people in who's interest it is to get you to believe what you do.)
I don't think so. If you look back at scientific breakthroughs, from Darwin to Pasteur to Curri, all of them were met with intense opposition from the scientific community. Darwin was ostracized, and Pasteur was goulitined. It is an ongoing theme in the growth of any scientific field that scientists are comfortable with what the beleive, and sometimes, regretablly, take measures similar to zealots.
ReplyDeleteEither way, the fact that 99% of the scientific community (which is an egregiously erroneous number) agree doesn't matter. They need proof. The need a testable expiriment in order to establish any real credability according to the scientific method. If they don't have it, then all they are doing is clapping louder.
BTW: Recent NASA data indicates that the CO2 poles on Mars have been melting for the past several (3 if I remember right) summers. They attribute this to an overall rise in temperature of Mars.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
ReplyDeleteThere it is. And from somone who is on the far left of most other issues. He doesn't claim scientific expertise, he simply claims to understand what the scientific process is, and what it isn't.
I apologize for pointing Dan in this direction.. LOL And just for the record, he argues with me constantly too.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about the global warming science is that it has to be one of the most difficult things to "prove" with mathematical precision. Due to its nature, scientists have to analyze all the data and come to a conclusion about the cause and effect. I hope we can agree that the overwhelming conclusion of the climate scientists is that we're having an effect. We can argue the degree of influence if you want, but that's really irrelevant.
You can paste links to any number of individuals who have a different theory. We're talking about "overwhelming consensus".
The point is this. If we do nothing, the consequences could be catastrophic. If we try our best to "go green" and we are completely wrong about human influence on climate, what's the consequence? A cleaner environment. It's not a partisan issue at all; it's about the condition of the world we want our children to inherit.
And Dan.. you have to realize that DG is a bible literalist. I respect that point of view, because it's consistent. DG believes that the human race is about 6000 years old. He doesn't believe human beings have evolved. That's a consistent point of view for someone who bases their point of view on biblical text.
I find people who pick and choose the parts of the bible that suit them to be intellectually dishonest. If it truly is the "Word of God" and you don't believe parts of it, by definition that means the whole thing is bogus. Therefore, one would have to accept the whole thing as the "Gospel truth".
I'm reminded of a recent story about a documentary that James Cameron produced. It involved the ossuaries in Jerusalem that allegedly contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - and (and this is the real shocker) the ossuary that contained the remains of Judah, son of Jesus.
A Christian, by definition, cannot accept that supposition. If they did, that would invalidate their entire religion. Therefore, DG believing that human beings date back 6000 years and evolution being false is absolutely necessary for him to maintain his faith.
This is another one of those "I can't believe he said that" type of comments;
ReplyDeleteWhen they can find a way to promote evironmentalism without unethical tactics, and without economic slowdown, then I'll listen a little.
In other words, the issue isn't the environment, the issue is the "tactics" pro-environmental people use to advance the cause. And, if you want to hug a tree, great, as long as it doesn't cost me any money. Once you do those things, I'll pay a passing reference to the health of the planet on which we live.
It, quite simply, boggles the mind.
Heres the thing, and if you read the article it points this out very clearly.
ReplyDeleteDoing the right thing for the wrong reasons is just as bad as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
I think we can all agree that global warming is happening. And I think we can all agree that we don't like pollution.
The real problem I have is that we are being told things that simply arnt true by people we trust. Or are supposed to trust. If we keep glossing it over, even for good reasons, and keeping the planet healthy and clean is a good reason, then you break down the barrier between science and politics. You destory it's credability.
As regards to "overwhelming consencus", let me overwrite a few instances where the overwhelming concensus was wrong.
Puerperal Fever was the leading cause of women after childbearth till 1900. However, there were scientists, Gordon, Holmes, and Semmelwiess, that said it was infectious, and sanitary methods could cure it. They were dissmissed for 125 years at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives because the overwhelming concensus said no.
Pellagra is another example. It ran rampant among the homeless in the early 20th century. The government had Goldberger look into how the "pellagra germ" was spread. He said it wasn't a germ. He proved it by injecting pellagra patients bloood into his own, and by, this is gross, eating scabs of the pelagra rashes. No one ever got sick, because it's a dietary condition. However, it was never recognized as such intil the 1920s. Why? Because the concencus said no.
I could go on and on. Wegner and Continental Drift. Jenner and Smallpox, Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy...how many more examples do we really need?
Notice, also, that the term "concencus" is never invoked for science that has real footing. No one says that an overwhelming concensus beleives that e=mc^2, or that they beleive that the sun is 93 million miles away. So what is it, then, that it is needed to invoke Global Warming?
Fundamentally, it's Macarthiesm.
There was a Danish Statistician named Bjorn Lomborg who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. The book outlined pretty much what I am outlining now, and the scientific community went INSANE.
Sientific America published an 11 page article on how "rife the document is with factual innacuracies", but could only come up with 9. They even compared him to a holocaust denier. Lomborg asked for a rebutal, and got 1 page.
He still gets attacked to this day, and these attacks make it clear what is going on. Lomborg is being charged with heresy. That's why critics don't need facts. That's why blanket statements will suffice. Because he is the next Galileo. He is being put up on a cross because he DARES to ask why. I knew scientists would be condemned and criticized in a galelian fashion, I just never expected Scientific American to play the role of The Pope.
PS: I only argue with Tom because he is wrong a lot. :P However, Tom and I agree on most issues in generality, the minutea are what we argue about. That being said, I find it a lot more entertaining and intellectual to argue with someone with whom you really do disagree with. That's what Toms blog is boring. :D
Thank you Tom for telling Dan about this site, don't apologize. If I did not debate with folks that disagree with my position, I would never truly understand why I believe what I believe, or consider the contrary. You are also correct that I recognize the entire Bible as being the word of God, but please don't confuse me with "religious" people who cross their hearts, or practice pagan influenced rituals in their worship. As for the arguments regarding Global Warming, I never said that I didn't believe it is happening, only that I don't believe it is completely human induced. Did we play a role in it at all? Perhaps. Should we care about the environment. Yes. But I have a problem with extremism where I am characterized as Dan characterized me because I am not a full fledged, card carrying environmentalist, and I don't believe that the situation is as dire as environmentalists make it out to be. As for the 99% of science supporting Global Warming as being man-induced, or 99% supporting the theory of Evolution, think about this: at one time 99% of people were sure the world was flat, the Earth was the center of the universe, the West Indies were islands off the coast of Asia, the gorilla was a wild hairy man of Africa, and hell was beneath the surface of the planet, somewhere near the earth's core, I am sure. The earth's temperature is changing, eventually the landscape will change due to it, and even farther in the future an ice age is coming. That is a fact. It was coming no matter what, and there is nothing we can do about it. I am not saying sit on our duffs. Pollution is bad, and should be regulated. But let's not be like the water-nazis where I work in construction and decide that dirt is a hazardous material, and fine a company $25,000 because a dirt clod fell into a storm drain. That is what I am talking about, economic insanity and over the top doom and gloom over environmental issues. Let's be reasonable, not ridiculous. And Dan and Tom, I may sometimes act as if you piss me off, and sometimes you do, but I enjoy the debate, and appreciate your concern for what you believe in. I may believe you are wrong, but it takes great people to stand up for what they believe in, now matter what it is, and as passionate as you are about your beliefs, I am equally passionate about mine. I welcome your commentary, and enjoy the interplay. Thanks for visiting and commenting. And unlike those other rightwingers you have made note of, Tom, I'm not going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteYou wanna know what else is a theory? Gravity.
ReplyDeleteYou are half right. Gravity is actually a scientific theory. Man made global warming is not.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Link
Man made (or man enhanced, for that matter) global warming is only a hypothesis, or at most, a scientific "model". It has yet to be proven once, let alone "through repeated experimental tests" so it does not rise to the level of a scientific theory at this point. The terminology used might have only been suitable for a "layman" but the concept (i.e. that man made global warming is unproven and is, therefore, not a scientific fact) is valid.
The fact of the matter is that the only thing that has EVER been consistent about the Earth's climate is that it is inconsistent. If the earth's climate were static the great lakes would still be under sheets of glacial ice.
Is it POSSIBLE that mankind has influenced the climate? Of course it's possible. Is it a proven fact? Not by a long shot. Insisting that everyone take on faith the unproven assumptions that make up a hypothesis because proponents of the hypothesis "say so" is not science, it is religious zealotry.
I hope we can agree that the overwhelming conclusion of the climate scientists is that we're having an effect. We can argue the degree of influence if you want, but that's really irrelevant.
As was stated earlier, the number of scientists who buy into the hypothesis just makes it a REALLY POPULAR hypothesis, not a scientific fact. But even if we assume that humans are having an impact, the "degree of influence" absolutely IS relevant. Your statement is tantamount to saying that the severity of an Emergency room patient's injuries is irrelevant to the level of medical care required to repair the damage. That's patently ridiculous.
If the effect of human activity is equivalent to a scratch on the surface of the climate, then chemotherapy and removal of organs is not an indicated treatment.
Many environmentalists would cripple the world economy to combat Global warming. In my humble opinion, before amputating my leg, you had better demonstrate the necessity. That necessity has not yet been sufficiently established.
If we try our best to "go green" and we are completely wrong about human influence on climate, what's the consequence?
Economic devastation comes to mind.
A complete halt of economic development in third world countries comes to mind.
Famine, pestilence, a worldwide economic collapse. You know...minor inconveniences like that.
YOU may not be advocating actions that could cause worldwide economic chaos, but many environmentalists are doing just that.
Should we stop researching alternative energy sources? Of course not. Should we try to reduce personal energy consumption? Of course we should. Should we try to minimize the release of pollutants into the environment? Absolutely. Should we cripple our economy in an attempt to correct something that we aren't even sure we have the power to correct? Um...I'm thinking, no.
[Insert Complete Hyperbole and Baseless Attack Here]
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just following the trend.
Evironmentalism=complete world collapse? Why? Because you said so? Can you bring any real facts to the table to support the slippery slope claim>
BTW: My rant on Theory was after DVG was talking about how evolution was "just a theory". Which would be incorrect.
Dan, you have to put their comments in context - and that context being completely self-contradictory and incoherent, with 95% of it being straw man arguments.
ReplyDeleteCompare a couple DG comments. First from this thread.
If I did not debate with folks that disagree with my position, I would never truly understand why I believe what I believe, or consider the contrary.
Versus, the infamous;
"And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."
Evironmentalism=complete world collapse? Why? Because you said so? Can you bring any real facts to the table to support the slippery slope claim
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of strawman arguments...
Ignoring the complete hyperbole and baseless attack of your statement, there is just as much evidence to support my hypothesis that enacting the stringent environmental controls that SOME environmentalists propose would result in economic collapse as their is that man made (or enhanced) global warming will result in the climatic destruction and chaos that those same environmentalists envision if we do not enact their draconian provisions.
I went back and re-read the "theory" statement. My bad. Believe it or not, I wasn't intentionally trying to mis-state your position.
"But when 99.9% of the worlds scientists agree, I just have to say, that what you express is a partisan argument, bought and paid for."
ReplyDeleteThere's an interesting little story about scientific "consensus".