Night of the Jack-booted Thugs
University of Virginia should fight the Va. attorney general's inquiry (Against Dr. Michael Mann)
Maybe Massachusetts should launch a similar investigation against Richard Lindzen? He's the one taking grants to do junk climate science while taking oil industry money to deny the science of global warming, which is a fact. Talk about double dipping. Mann's work stands. No number of Jack-booted right winger cops can change that Inconvenient Truth.
Maybe Massachusetts should launch a similar investigation against Richard Lindzen? He's the one taking grants to do junk climate science while taking oil industry money to deny the science of global warming, which is a fact. Talk about double dipping. Mann's work stands. No number of Jack-booted right winger cops can change that Inconvenient Truth.
Labels: Global Warming Deniers
posted by Mark at 10:26 PM
5 Comments:
If you denied grants to people with conflicts of interests, Al Gore would go broke. But, isn't your real concern about shutting down debate, when the global warming alarmists are starting to lose every battle?
And, here's the latest on federal grants and who gets them.
Obama Energy Official Has a Conflict of Interests
Here's more on Mann's work:
A good trick to create a decline
Frankly, Mark, I can't trust the IPCC and all the other left-wing groups that claim to be independent while sticking out their palms for money. If you stuck to scientific principles rather than wanting to be on the side that's popular, you would be a skeptic, too.
Al Gore doesn't need grants. Moreover, 95% of all grant money goes to satellite construction and launch. If you knew that there would be no need to argue against the data. Your right wing propaganda fails the appeal to authority and scientific method. When you come up with a real theory that disproves AGW, let us know, Woody. You have zip as it stands.
Mark, just out of curiosity, can you name one of the computer models that is predicting AGW that has consistently predicted PAST warm/cold/CO2 levels? Just ONE?
Sure. All models are back-tested in this way but global warming is not based on models. It's based on hard empirical evidence. Models are just projection tools.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
When you do some math on the subject be sure to post it.
evidence
models
hansens-1988-projections
Post a Comment
<< Home