Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action

[j-mac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

China says moving to enforce greenhouse gas goals | Reuters

CDM answer to greenhouse gas emissions, expert says

At least China is doing something. But I have always found this argument curious because on the one hand you are virtually acknowledging there IS a problem - because if there is not why complain about China? On the other hand it smacks of "But Billy doesn't have to clean HIS bedrooms so why should I clean mine?"

This is pure bunk. If there were to be a treaty signed by the US limiting greenhouse gases, and putting into effect a global carbon credit exchange. China has already said they will not sign. so why should we?

Whatever China is or is not doing is immaterial to the facts

Nonsense. Does China only have to breath the air directly above its own country? Does not their climate share with the rest of the world?


Oh BTW, I love tit for tat....Here I'll see your three articles:

http://greenhellblog.com/2010/09/01/desperate-greens-make-desperate-claims/

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/09/post-carbon-blues/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100051954/but-lomborg-was-always-a-warmist/



j-mac

 

[Deuce]

The Earth in the past has gone through large weather cyclical changes. Co2 from Man had NOTHING to do with it. They are growing about 2500 acres of crops in Greenland as the present time.

In the estimated years of 950 - 1250 Crops were also grown in Greenland by Vikings.

Oh gee, I've never heard greenland mentioned before. The world is currently warmer than the medieval warm period, on average. Greenland was especially warm during that time period, but it appears to be a regional effect because other areas were not as warm. But hey, that wont stop skeptics from naming their very favorite historical anecdote trying to prove their logically fallacious stance: Temperature changed without mankind's influence, therefore mankind cannot influence temperature! That's faulty logic, and if you can't figure out why, there's no more reason to talk to you.

That was followed in 1500 - 1700 by the "Little Ice Age"


About 300 years separate the periods.

Yes, which ended... around the time we started significantly changing land use and spitting out CO2?

Up until 1980 these same Scientists were predicting an ICE AGE.

Incorrect. In the 1970s, a small number of papers were published predicting cooling, but the majority predicted warming. This is another standard lie from the skeptics.

Perhaps some of you forgot that Europe had some of the Coldest Winters in over a hundred years 2-3 years ago.

Anecdotes do not prove a scientific argument. You understand that when one half of the globe is in winter, the other half is in summer, right? When these record-breaking snowstorms and coldsnaps were occuring, the southern hemisphere was seeing the hottest summers in a century. Global average temperature means you need a global average temperature.

There is data that suggests we could plunge in an ICE AGE similar to the one 10,000 years ago.

I suppose you'd like to show us that data?
Yes, we'll eventually start downward on the milkanovitch cycle. Couple thousand years from now...

With the additional increase in rainfall - according to some Scientists all it would take to pricipetate it woud be a large Volcanic eruption that blew enough ash into the air to take a year to all clear out. That would be enough of a trigger for Snow - ten feet in Texas and more North of that.

So now we're going with hypothetical volcanoes. How does this disprove the CO2 -> Warming link?

If I was looking for a culprit - for CO2 I would look at deforestation as the Cause. Plants clean the CO2 out of the air.


AFrica and South America have had about half of the land deforested for crops and lumber.
Just think about how much area that one tree has with 50,000 leaves working to clean the air of CO2. Cut a a couple of million miles of trees down and you eliminate a lot of CO2 removal.

Err, yes. Deforestation is part of the rise in CO2. Nobody said otherwise. Are you saying fossil fuels don't contribute? That's a new one. Maybe you should take a basic chemistry class?

Again the Stats on mans contribution for CO2 is 3% not 10% - 90%.

Only if you ignore half of nature's carbon cycle. We're a small part of the gross, but we're 100% of the net.

The rest is more anecdotes and I'm bored now.

 

[Cyborg]

This is a 2 1/2 page article about the investigation of IPPC and Coverup. If you believe in Global Warming then you should have the back bone and man up to reading criticism rather than tapping yourself down the road with a White Cane

They are vehemently denying all and every FOI request. The investigator was the head of the Carbon Tax Credits org. WHITEWASH _ COVERUP

Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults

Most transparent, manipulated brazen cover up possible
Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, July 8, 2010


There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity.

Yes, they might start asking questions and putting doubt in the public's mind. It might jeopardize the entire global climate scam that is designed to undermine capitalism and replace it with one-world government and total control over everyone in the world.

 

[Donc]

Oh gee, I've never heard greenland mentioned before. The world is currently warmer than the medieval warm period, on average. Greenland was especially warm during that time period, but it appears to be a regional effect because other areas were not as warm. But hey, that wont stop skeptics from naming their very favorite historical anecdote trying to prove their logically fallacious stance: Temperature changed without mankind's influence, therefore mankind cannot influence temperature! That's faulty logic, and if you can't figure out why, there's no more reason to talk to you.



Yes, which ended... around the time we started significantly changing land use and spitting out CO2?


Incorrect. In the 1970s, a small number of papers were published predicting cooling, but the majority predicted warming. This is another standard lie from the skeptics.



Anecdotes do not prove a scientific argument. You understand that when one half of the globe is in winter, the other half is in summer, right? When these record-breaking snowstorms and coldsnaps were occuring, the southern hemisphere was seeing the hottest summers in a century. Global average temperature means you need a global average temperature.



I suppose you'd like to show us that data?
Yes, we'll eventually start downward on the milkanovitch cycle. Couple thousand years from now...



So now we're going with hypothetical volcanoes. How does this disprove the CO2 -> Warming link?



Err, yes. Deforestation is part of the rise in CO2. Nobody said otherwise. Are you saying fossil fuels don't contribute? That's a new one. Maybe you should take a basic chemistry class?


Only if you ignore half of nature's carbon cycle. We're a small part of the gross, but we're 100% of the net.

The rest is more anecdotes and I'm bored now.

Dont bother Duece, this guy didnt come to debate anything.:roll:

 

[damianvincent]

Global Warming is a hoax pure and simple, perpetrated by scientists that push doomsday scenario's in an effort to secure more governmental funds through grants and various other forms of funding.

First and foremost, climate change is a natural phenomenon repeated throughout Earth's history, this planet started off as a rolling ball of lava, went lush and tropical, followed by an ice age, back to tropical, climate change is apart of this planets natural evolution. Secondly there are many factors not considered in these doomsday scenario's like solar activity which has precipitated a mini ice age in the past. Last time we hit such a large solar minimum, we faced the little ice age, we have been experiencing a large solar minimum recently and low and behold global temperatures plummeted as recorded on all four major global temperature tracking outlets.

Sorry guys but I'm not buying the end of the world scenario's. Back it up with some credible science that's not shown to be fudged, like we recently saw with the leaked emails from many top climate scientists.

 

[zimmer]

Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action | Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit



I can already see the replies to this:

- He's part of the hoax
- He's a convert to the 'religion' of global warming
- He's getting paid to switch sides

... We'll have to see how the story develops.

LOL... Nice try.

I recall his emergence with The Skeptical Environmentalist.
He's never been a GW naysayer.
He believes (ed) the money could be better invested elsewhere. That was his claim. Your article rightfully points this out.

As to his present position, Lomborg defends himself vigorously against the dreaded flip-flopper charge, pointing out that he never disputed the existence of manmade warming, but only the details of its severity and more importantly, what actions will be most effective.

Look at the first 2min and it's plain to see in this vid... 5-years ago.
The remainder of the vid he goes on defending his priorities.

[video=google;-8730688320934276492]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8730688320934276492#[/video]

 

[Deuce]

Global Warming is a hoax pure and simple, perpetrated by scientists that push doomsday scenario's in an effort to secure more governmental funds through grants and various other forms of funding.

First and foremost, climate change is a natural phenomenon repeated throughout Earth's history, this planet started off as a rolling ball of lava, went lush and tropical, followed by an ice age, back to tropical, climate change is apart of this planets natural evolution. Secondly there are many factors not considered in these doomsday scenario's like solar activity which has precipitated a mini ice age in the past. Last time we hit such a large solar minimum, we faced the little ice age, we have been experiencing a large solar minimum recently and low and behold global temperatures plummeted as recorded on all four major global temperature tracking outlets.

Sorry guys but I'm not buying the end of the world scenario's. Back it up with some credible science that's not shown to be fudged, like we recently saw with the leaked emails from many top climate scientists.

Conspiracy theory + straw man = standard skeptic argument.

You really think a century's worth of work by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of fields is all a giant hoax and somehow nobody noticed or raised a flag? Nobody noticed discrepancies in data, where one scientist's falsified data didn't agree with the rest of this massive global conspiracy? No intern was ever told to change some data and took issue with it and went to the press? Man, these scientists are good.

 

[zimmer]

Conspiracy theory + straw man = standard skeptic argument.

You really think a century's worth of work by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of fields is all a giant hoax and somehow nobody noticed or raised a flag? Nobody noticed discrepancies in data, where one scientist's falsified data didn't agree with the rest of this massive global conspiracy? No intern was ever told to change some data and took issue with it and went to the press? Man, these scientists are good.

Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit

The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.


Read more: Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit | Mail Online

Like the Journolist... "leaked" emails.
Obama failing, climate science corrupted to the core, Journolists a'la Goebbels.
Not a great year for Da Left.

There have been reams of evidence of climate science being corrupted. It's no wonder the UN called for a restructing of that dept only two days ago.

Also, why is it we only get one side of the story? There are thousands of climate skeptics qualified to debate, but are virtually never seen.

WHY?

.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You really think a century's worth of work by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of fields is all a giant hoax and somehow nobody noticed or raised a flag? Nobody noticed discrepancies in data, where one scientist's falsified data didn't agree with the rest of this massive global conspiracy? No intern was ever told to change some data and took issue with it and went to the press? Man, these scientists are good.

This happens quite frequently, actually, but it's rarely a conspiracy. It's a phenomenon called Cargo Cult science

 

[Guy Incognito]

Double post. But while I'm at it, I have to say I agree wit the people here who have been saying that Lomborg never really "reversed" his position on anything. If you really listen to what he was saying before and compare it to this, it's not a change of his view on climate change, but on resource allocation. As usual, the two extreme sides of this argument are wrong, and the truth is almost directly in the middle.

 

[bowerbird]

This is a 2 1/2 page article about the investigation of IPPC and Coverup. If you believe in Global Warming then you should have the back bone and man up to reading criticism rather than tapping yourself down the road with a White Cane

They are vehemently denying all and every FOI request. The investigator was the head of the Carbon Tax Credits org. WHITEWASH _ COVERUP

Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults

Most transparent, manipulated brazen cover up possible
Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, July 8, 2010


There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity.

Yes, they might start asking questions and putting doubt in the public's mind. It might jeopardize the entire global climate scam that is designed to undermine capitalism and replace it with one-world government and total control over everyone in the world.

The denialists greatest disappointment - that the leaked CRU emails showed no fraud.

Live with it

 

[bowerbird]

This happens quite frequently, actually, but it's rarely a conspiracy. It's a phenomenon called Cargo Cult science

You know I would really really really like someone to explain to me how this can be happening not just in climatology but palaeoclimatology and palaeontology and Geology and Physics and Chemistry and Astronomy and all those disciplines that have added to the knowledge base over the last 50-60 years. Not only is it a diverse group of scientists but it is a GLOBAL group numbering tens of thousands

Kinda makes it hard to make a conspiracy theory stick doesn't it?

 

[zimmer]

You know I would really really really like someone to explain to me how this can be happening not just in climatology but palaeoclimatology and palaeontology and Geology and Physics and Chemistry and Astronomy and all those disciplines that have added to the knowledge base over the last 50-60 years. Not only is it a diverse group of scientists but it is a GLOBAL group numbering tens of thousands

Kinda makes it hard to make a conspiracy theory stick doesn't it?

How many are involved with climate change politics? Who is condensing the message for public consumption? What has their record been? And why do we not see more climate naysayers on TV? I cannot recall seeing one in Europe. It's a non-stop mantra of GW this, GW that. It's disgusting for the scale of its narrowness.

The activists have tried to say the science is a closed case. How narrow and unscientific is that... and of course, they compare these people to Nazi's.

IPCC warned: focus on the science, not policy
September 2, 2010 – 4:54 pm, by Amber Jamieson

It’s been a gloomy year for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a damning review of its processes and procedures released this week wouldn’t have helped lift the fog.

The IPCC needs to stop focusing on policy and advocacy and concentrate more on climate science, says the independent review...
...the review pointing out the failures of the IPCC must be a little disheartening.

...It also encourages that controversy within climate science be better reflected in IPCC reports and that comments and arguments about IPCC reports be addressed more clearly. Perhaps most importantly it recommends: “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.” [my own emphasis]

Presumably this last point comes after the IPCC was slammed for declaring in its 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035. The IPCC embarrassingly admitted in January that the claim was based on media interview...

IPCC warned: focus on the science, not policy – Rooted

On August 30, 2010, the Inter Academy Council submitted its findings to the IPCC and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The Council provided a summary to the press at a briefing in New York, after which the IPCC leaders conducted their own press briefing to comment on the Inter Academy Council’s findings. The disconnect between the two briefings was palpable.

After its pro forma praise of the IPCC’s contributions to understanding global climate change and asserting that “the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall,” the Inter Academy Council spent the bulk of its 58 page report documenting many significant flaws that call into question the scientific objectivity of the entire IPCC infrastructure.

Dr. Harold T. Shapiro, an economics and public affairs professor and former president at Princeton University, who chaired the Inter Academy Council’s review, told reporters that “I think the errors made [by the IPCC] did dent the credibility of the process.”

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/02/uncovering-climategate/

 

[Councilman]

I never believed the HOAX and never will. Scientists can't agree on what is true and I have read plenty about the CO2 levels being much higher in the past.

As for the #1 post saying:

- He's part of the hoax
- He's a convert to the 'religion' of global warming
- He's getting paid to switch sides

I say all of the above plus the story left out that it was a bout a dumb ass.

 

[damianvincent]

This happens quite frequently, actually, but it's rarely a conspiracy. It's a phenomenon called Cargo Cult science

Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree

Really...

There is a sizable contingent of scientists who don't believe this nonsense. It's not some remote fringe, pseudo-science. Fact remains, the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally throughout it's natural history, it's not a new phenomenon. Fact, more factors play into the climate than get factored into the equation.

 

[Deuce]

Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree

Really...

There is a sizable contingent of scientists who don't believe this nonsense. It's not some remote fringe, pseudo-science. Fact remains, the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally throughout it's natural history, it's not a new phenomenon. Fact, more factors play into the climate than get factored into the equation.

With that petition, bachelor's degree in electrical engineering = scientist worthy of commenting on climatology.

 

[Councilman]

On side of sanity we find the following:

http://http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Click on the link because there is more to learn. I love when a Hoax is revealed by the data.

 

[Councilman]

On side of sanity we find the following:

http://http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Click on the link because there is more to learn. I love when a Hoax is revealed by the data.:2wave:

 

[BmanMcfly]

You only are passing by the whole concept of science aren't you? Ever heard of a meta-study?

And I also note that you are only re-iterating what some one else has once said because you have failed to link to any of those "studies" (Which I am betting are for the most part someone's opinion on a blog somewhere)

Oh, you wish that were true, don't you.... Limiting myself to one source per claim,

- Polar bears : http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2007/GW_polarbears.pdf (To save you time, the only places that show high risk of decline in the future are the areas of excessive hunting permits issued)
- Rainforests : Tropical rainforests are regrowing. Now what? | Reuters (The old growth is gone, but somehow the researchers forget to take into account that trees in nature will seed and germinate other trees, so the forests are reclaiming the territory, where they aren't cut down... once again, the danger become excessive hunting because people can get to the animals more easily)
- Shell regrowth : WHOI : Oceanus : Ocean Acidification: A Risky Shell Game (So, animals have the capacity to adjust to changing circumstances, how is that news?? Though, even the concept that 'CO2 acidifcation of the oceans' is a deceptive statement... THERE IS NO CHANCE that any level of human activity could turn the oceans "acid", the 'acidification' is from PH 8.2 -> PH 8.0 Which is still slightly base.)

So, now that I've shown the sources, remember I've limited to 1, so when you inevitably start crying I WILL replace it with more... On EVERY STEP of the way the science of fearmongering environmentalism has been overblown. Like others have said, it is a hoax, but it's not just a simple hoax, it's a VERY ELABORATE hoax designed to bring about a form of 'carbon tax' that will literally tax you for your exhaled CO2. Think about the implications of that. I'd say read the 70's version of the club of rome book 'limits to growth' (when al gore happened to be a member but you won't believe that even if I source it, so whatever) but odds are you'll just agree with the whole thing and start talking about how the depopulation isn't going fast enough.

Yes, I've heard of a meta-study... you ever heard of 'fraud'?? I'll remind you... things like 'fudging the data' is fraud. Try 'fudging the data' on your tax return... you'll find out how important the emails were.

No, I'd say the pictures speak for themselves.

Let me just stop you right there. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are bad for either the environment or unhealthy for us as individuals.

Now, back to the subject at hand...

Also wrong...
ShowArticle - Institute for Responsible Technology

Here's the deal : They feed the rodent GMO, they are fine, but slightly lower libido. The babies die 5X more often then the controls, of those that survive they are smaller and have a low sexual libido. Now of those rodents, continuing to eat GMO, their babies were mostly sterile.... and well, they had deformities, things like growing hair from their teeth.

Had you considered the concept of 'genetic pollution'?? Now, agree that we have a great understanding of genetics, we can see the genes of a tomato and know it's a tomato... BUT, I can all but guarantee that we don't understand the mechanics of the 'code' used to split the DNA during reproduction... So, what WAS a benign modifcation of somethings DNA, in future generations might have mutated into a fatal flaw.

The sad fact of GMO foods is that Monsanto was a highly corrupt corporation that paid off it's way through safety testing (and in some places getting their people in positions where they can approve these products. There have been DOZENS of books on the subject of Monsanto alone... yet, they modify around 70-80% of north america's food supply.

I'm not saying the GMO's COULDN"T be good... but you also have to look at HOW the plants are being modified... and there are only a few main ways that food is made GMO :
- 'roundup-ready' variety : Means that you can douse the land with herbicide / pesticides and the plants soak it up without dying.
- 'terminator seed' : this is 'proprietary protection' and seeds gathered from modified crops are sterile seeds.
- Chimera's : though this wasn't for food purposes, there were spider-genes added to goats, to make the goats produce spider silk proteins in their milk. This I actually would be fine with, so long as those goats remain 'out of the food supply' and with no chance to breed with non-modified goats.

Those are the main things I've heard about... I could have also mentioned the glowfish... but not important.

Sadly, the story is alot more complex, and the problem is that are we going to have a multi-generational open air food study, that like the rodents shrivelled and 90% died or were sterile by the third generation??? NO, of course not... this is about MONEY and Monsanto's aims to be the ONLY food company on earth. (Monsanto isn't exactly shy about their aims)

The denialists greatest disappointment - that the leaked CRU emails showed no fraud.

Live with it

Dude... they hired strictly 'pro-alarmist AGW proponents to do the 'investigation' on who were essentially their coworkers for years... NOT a conflict of interest at all...

 

[Guy Incognito]

You know I would really really really like someone to explain to me how this can be happening not just in climatology but palaeoclimatology and palaeontology and Geology and Physics and Chemistry and Astronomy and all those disciplines that have added to the knowledge base over the last 50-60 years. Not only is it a diverse group of scientists but it is a GLOBAL group numbering tens of thousands

It just makes me shake my head to hear this kind of nonsense. Scientists are wrong en masse all the time. It's sad that people who claim to represent science can get scientific principles so backward. Science does not a support any particular ideology. If you want to respect scientific principles you have to accept it when science cuts for you and against you.

You want somebody to explain it, just read the wiki article I linked to. Feynman does a great job of it. It's human error rather than conspiracy. Scientists are looking for career advancement, they don't want to make waves with challenging established ideas.

 

[jujuman13]

The cult of GW has been debunked....The debate is over.


j-mac

Au contraire, the debate has not really started, up till now we have merely heard a slanging match, only when we begin to have a reasoned discussion will some semblance of order be the outcome.

 

[Guy Incognito]

only when we begin to have a reasoned discussion will some semblance of order be the outcome.

That's asking a bit much, really.

 

[Le Marteau]

**Sigh** Do I really have to make you look foolish and reprint all the things said in, oh, I don't know the hundreds of GW threads debunking the theory and ignored by the faithful followers of the Lord God Gore? :doh

I assume you have the search function on your computer, Look it up.


Now "Jet Pack" your arse oughta here.....:lamo


j-mac

Wait, really? I know, this may sound asinine, but, are you aware that you literally followed the Original Post's prediction of how the GW deniers will attempt to deny it.. To a tee? I mean, first, you claimed it was a hoax. Then, you claimed he got sucked in by the "Lord God Gore" -- and then, like a prophecy being fulfilled, you said he was corrupt, and he was probably paid off!

Are you serious?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Wait, really? I know, this may sound asinine, but, are you aware that you literally followed the Original Post's prediction of how the GW deniers will attempt to deny it.. To a tee? I mean, first, you claimed it was a hoax. Then, you claimed he got sucked in by the "Lord God Gore" -- and then, like a prophecy being fulfilled, you said he was corrupt, and he was probably paid off!

Are you serious?

That's like running out and claiming the earth is flat and then saying "I bet some people are going to come in and say the earth is round."

 

[Deuce]

That's like running out and claiming the earth is flat and then saying "I bet some people are going to come in and say the earth is round."

The other way around, really...

Deniers never have any real scientific evidence to back themselves up, so they focus on attacking actual scientific evidence with conspiracy theories and ad hominem.