|
Merany1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Large public opinions are moulded and nurtured by powerful think tanks.
Where does she think environmentalism and AGW hysteria comes from?
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
kjthurber- as well as being an idiot your last post reveals that you are a raving loony fascist. It's easy to read between the lines in your dark call for retribution. Well you won't get it, retard. Your point of view is as isolated in the world of real politics as that of other loony neo-communists! LOL. Rave away. demand my death by all means. free-thinking readers of this thread will recognise that you substitute bullying for scientifc discussion. How pathetic.
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
realclimate. org has never been "discredited" by anyone rational. The only loonies are those who shill for oil companies. When more people realize what is happening, I wouldn't be surprised if there is retribution. I have read calls for that sort of thing already.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
kjthurber - I love it when you call me a denialist - it so clearly shows that you are a raving loony member of the Church of Global warming, rather than a person who judges the evidence rationally.
There are many much better websites than the loony discredited one you refer to e.g. worldclimatereport or climate-skeptic or climateaudit or CO2science or Friends of Science or Lavoisier society, etc. etc. etc.
These websites continually deconstruct the pseudoscientific flack of Mann et al.
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No, I'm writing, not speaking. So your analogy falls apart – just like the ridiculous denialism you peddle.
Oreskes beautifully deconstructs the Cold War ideology that drives the denialist crusade against "dogma" (read: scientific consensus).
At the same time, a group of climate scientists have a great web site that continually deconstructs the pseudo-scientific flack being thrown up.
See realclimate. org
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
kjthruber - I may be constipated but you have faeces coming out of your mouth! LOL
The scientists - no inverted commas - who get their articles published in peer reviewed journals are in fact climate scientists. there are hundreds of them who dissent from the CO2 dogma of dangerous man-made global warming.
Your ignorance shows, if you don't recognise this.
Oreskes is an idiotic neo-communist. Hasn't she noticed that the Berlin Wall has fallen and we don't have to toe the party line?
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hundreds if not thousands? You must be constipated again. The "scientists" who appear on industry-sponsored "dissent" lists are either not climate scientists or not scientists of any kind.
Oreskes does a great job of explaining the Cold War mentality of some aging physicists.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Oreskes is completely inaccurate in her claims about where the opposition to the CO2 dogma comes from . In reality, as any independent minded person can check there are hundreds if not thousands of unaffiliated scientists who have challenged the dogma in literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies over the last few years.
jerkazoid (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
the strategy also works on the theory of evolution |
