Science Debate 2008
My candidate, Hillary Clinton, is the only candidate on record who has given a major science speech. It's no accident. She, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were the only ones at the Grist Global warming forum here in LA last fall. Only one candidate has a viable plan to combat climate change and the stifling of scientists like the country's foremost climatologist, NASA's James E. Hansen. The future is now.
Labels: Presidential Politics
posted by Mark at 12:08 AM
5 Comments:
From the Canada Free Press, not usually seen as a right-wing paper:
"Global Cooling is a Serious Problem"
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2071
Looks to me that you have gone waaaayy out on a pretty dicey limb. One can only wonder what damage this will do to your professional rep in 5 to 10 years.
"Scientist [sic]who study climate change have now come up with a new prognosis for the future of our planet: 2007 saw the greatest single drop in temperature in recorded history. The ice age which had been receding for the last few centuries seems to be returning."
Yet, as if by magic this Canuck nitwit doesn't actually cite a human being! Even a dumb wingnut variety. He just says this! Amazing.
My reputation is intact, now and in a decade or more. Ice ages are caused by Milkanovich Cycles. They are due in 50,000 years. I don't know what kind of publishing business you are in in Louisville, but it's probably tobacco PR.
He was, as of course you well know, responding to the recent spate of articles about 2007 being one of the coldest years on record.
"Is Winter 2008 Making Climate Alarmists Question Global Warming?"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/02/winter-2008-making-climate-alarmists-question-global-warming
I know this will probably generate another tirade but what's with the inability to debate without the constant name-calling?, i.e., "Canuck" "nitwit" "dumb wingnut". It certainly isn't unique to your site but seems to be endemic to virtually every leftie blog I read. Seems as the mere suggestion that global warming ain't all that it's cracked up to be causes the blood pressure of it's proponents to get to dangerously high levels - at least judging by the "in your face" rehetoric.
It's judging by the quality of the opposition. which is stuck on stupid. Snowing in Buffalo is not proof against global warming. Only numbskulls dispute it.
Is alarmists a name? I think so. Show me your facts. I've not seen a recent spate of articles. Do you have anything peer reviewed? I bet you don't even know what the hell that is. This is the problem you you right wing nimrods. Not a on eof you has even taken a class at a junior college in science yet you're all experts. Right.
http://gws101.blogspot.com/
Mark
I wonder if any of the candidates have seen this NEW Hollywood sign, er what it might look like in the year 2100, a bit brown on the hills there....
Post a Comment
<< Home