Posted on 10/09/2007 5:47:48 AM PDT by AT7Saluki
Good post!
Hah! If we supposed to warmer than three years ago why don't we have MORE hurricanes?
Does this mean I should not sell my snow shovel!
Are you saying the organization had any credibility left to begin with? Like all these institutions controlled by the liberal elite, whether they be the elite Holliwierd self-praising Grammies, or the noble peace prize glee club, they've proven themselves irrelevant; useless awards to whoever their favorite useless liberal leftwing moonbat or Islamic terrorist/dictator of the day is. People who actually accomplish great things are passed over because they don't belong to their club.
The court was right in all their findings. There is no scientific evidence for most of the claims we read about in the papers. But yet we are kooks if we even dare to suggest otherwise. Kudos to the court for being honest.
Who would buy it? All the sheeple believe this global warming crap. It's pounded into their heads by the media every day.
One of the global warming commercials played 50 times a day features an old bag (looks like an Alzheimer's patient) recalling how she used to play in the snow on a glacier somewhere when she was a kid, and now it's just a gravel pile.
she asks, "what happened?"
I keep yelling back- "you forgot where the spot that you used to play is, looks like it's about 500 yards up the mountain, but I doubt that you played on a glacier every day when you were a kid anyways, it's 500 miles from civilization. It must be an Alzheimer triggered delusional dream, caused by all those failing and misfiring neuro pathways."
Considering in what country this takes place, I am pleasantly surprised to see this.
Which court?
The “inconvenient truths” are the ones the Democrats keep tripping over. Not that they, in their headlong rush for power over the rest of us, care one bit.
I blame that gal who advised him to dress in *earth* tones. She started the whole debacle!!
What court? Since when is a court an arbiter of scientific facts in the first place? What is the background of this “story”?
And which "Government?" And who is/are the expert(s) who "couldn't prove" so many things? And what things could the expert show, that aren't reported here?
After posting I clicked and read the article. Apparently some truck driver in England sued to keep school teachers from using the film in class for political indoctrination, and based on proving the cited inaccuracies won the case. Good news I suppose, but completely irrelevant to anything.
Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.
For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.
We didn’t have more hurricanes because NASA found (and the media refused to report) an inaccuracy in their measurements that put the warmest year on record in the late 30’s instead of 1994.
/sarc (necessary?)
When a truck driver can call a perfumed prince on his lies and/or
sloppy logic...
It’s a good thing that perfumed prince didn’t end up occupying
The Oval Office.
Time for a “Fanfare For The Comman Man”.
When a truck driver can call a perfumed prince on his lies and/or
sloppy logic...
It’s a good thing that perfumed prince didn’t end up occupying
The Oval Office.
Time for a “Fanfare For The Comman Man”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.