What, no "except when that story sucks" clause?
Harvard Physicist Who Criticized Global Warming is Running for Congress
Supreme Court mum for now on climate rule challenges
Global Warming on Free Republic
Evidence in favour of climate change is so strong, he said...
The science in favor of climate change is akin to the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease.
Maybe its time to ban all use and possession of carbon based fuels except for critical government use, of course.
Its like the 2nd Amendment protecting Obama’s storm troops right to use guns against you, but not giving us any rights,
The ol’ BS detector is going off like a klaxon. The old ying yang better get grease cause we’re gonna be paying out of it big time.
P.S. As for the smoking meme. Don’t know everybody’s age on FR but, when I was a kid, my parents and my friends parents used to have parties where there was so much smoke in the house you could hardly see across the room. IF second hand smoke is the threat that it is proclaimed to be, wouldn’t us baby boomers be croaking at a lot higher rate from supposed second hand smoke issues? Where’s the data? Anyone remember the asbestos curtains at the movies? “We do asbestos we can.”
But it ain't our fault ... it's cyclic.
Because the mass media is so biased against AGW orthodoxy and such whores for those horrid skeptics....oh, wait....[eyeroll]
Smoking is not the only cause of cancer. Western production is not necessarily the cause of temperature changes on Earth OR Mars.
Science with millions of samples in both the test and the control groups vs pseudoscience with one item in the test group and zero in the control group.
False. We just went through 17 years of rising CO2 levels without a significant rise in temperatures. That would be akin to having no moon rocks, no video of lunar walking. no astronauts claiming to have been on the moon and no images of earth from the moon.
The skeptics have already made them go from “Global Warming” to “Global Climate Change” because of their reporting the facts.
Why would they have changed their message so drastically unless they were wrong in the first place, hmmmm?
I wonder what the salaries are for Chairman and CEO of the Committee on Climate Change. I wonder what they would be if it became the “scientific consensus” that human activity is not a significant factor in climate change.
Climate scientist must be sensing they are about to lose their funding.
What, no "except when that story sucks" clause?
Harvard Physicist Who Criticized Global Warming is Running for Congress
Supreme Court mum for now on climate rule challenges
Global Warming on Free Republic
The evidence supporting global warming being a LIBERAL HOAX is so strong it can be compared to linking polio with the polio virus. Or sex to having children, or being a hundred years old linked to taking last place on a 9 mile marathon race...
once there is a story they need to run with it and get people to believe that story
Yep, that's what the alarmists believe is the job of the press. And, sadly, a lot of the press think that's a fair description of their job, too.
Oh. So that means the evidence linking smoking to cancer is bullsh*t, too.