|
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
kjthruber - the only reason you want me to go onto your warmaholic website is because you would like the sensation of bullying me as all your raving loony comrades gang up on me. No thanks, I'll stick with scientific debate.
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Again, I dare you to peddle your denialist nonsense in the comment section of realclimate. org
I doubt you will, being the coward that you are.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
kjthurber you are BOTH a fool and a liar! LOL
You haven't noticed how the whole acid rain scare has vanished into thinb air? Why don't you read that excellent book by Booker and North "Scared to Death" to get a sense of perspective.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Wrong lackey running dog - don't you just love the way I make fun of your stupid name calling?
Eco-sheep you are wrong baaaah!
I suggest you try to peddle your warmaholic nonsense amongst idiots anonymous. That would be fun to watch.
Now, having returned your insults have you anything more intelligent than a snail to add?
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Just because the trees are still there, that means there's no acid rain???
You are either a fool or a liar.
esrl. noaa. gov/csd/AQRS/reports/napapreport05.pdf
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Sorry, lackey. Wrong again.
I suggest you try to peddle your denialist nonsense in the comment section of realclimate. org
That would be fun to watch.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
danjuandiego - correction - the vast majority of skeptical scientists have never had anything to do with tobacco - as you'd find out if only you approached the subject with an open mind.
As for acid rain - it's precisely an example of great green scare that never materialised. Remember how it was supposed to destroy all our forest by 2000. Guess what they're still here and growing vigorously, partly thanks to all that lovely CO2 fertiliser we've helpfully put into the atmosphere.
minilemur (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Kjthurber you really are stupid! Thanks for your sophisticated response which consisted of insulting me. LOL. Typical for you eco-sheep.
There's nothing sophisticated about Oreskes's argument. And her orriginal documentary researchw as shallow and rebutted twice now by later reasearch (Peiser and Schulte).
She doesn't have facts, only opinions. And the truth of the matter is that political pressure has been brought to bear much more on the alarmist side than the skeptical side.
kjthurber (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Naomi Oreskes has a sophisticated argument based on original documentary research, but some a**hole named "minilemur" comes along and tries to assert that she doesn't have facts. Gee, that reminds me of the morons who claim that cigarettes don't cause cancer.
Got polar bears? Not for long.
danjuandiego (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's ironic that the same people trying to disprove (or at least sow doubt about) global warming also tried to disprove tobacco smoking causes cancer, second-hand smoke, fluorocarbons, ozone-hole, and acid rain. So far, batting score is .000! |
