Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do, I just have to call them on their stupidity.
I really hate stupid.
Stupid is a perspective. There is ignorance, which you have shown in multiple posts about historical facts and trends.
One mans stupid is another mans genius. People called guys sitting in a garage with a soldering iron and a mother board stupid in the 70's. They sure look pretty damned smart now.
Stupid is a perspective. There is ignorance, which you have shown in multiple posts about historical facts and trends.
One mans stupid is another mans genius. People called guys sitting in a garage with a soldering iron and a mother board stupid in the 70's. They sure look pretty damned smart now.
To blithely call a storm a product of man is stupid.
You are so utterly full of it! I am supposed to read all of your links with an open mind but whatever I may post is considered immediately suspect. Ross Gelbspan is an activist with a bias, why should I consider what he has to say? See? I can play that game too.
It seems also, after looking online, that the only "evidence" of this $2,500 a DAY claim come from the Gelbspan article who offers no sources whatsoever to back it up.
This from a discredited ex-journalist who fraudulently claimed he won a pulitzer prize Ross Gelbspan
LOL... so wait, a book jacket that he didn't write contains a mistake, and suddenly he's a 'discredited journalist'. Copywriters for the publishing companies write those, not the writers themselves. They do it to boost their sales, or because they don't understand how the prizes work.
You've also cited a website that uses such objective terms as HA! when they're 'completely destroying' their sources... not so sure they're in a position to criticize the journalistic standards of others.
Quote:
In 1984, Gelbspan's newspaper The Boston Globe and seven staff writers were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for a series of articles. But not Gelbspan. He was simply an editor who had some (non-award-winning) involvement in the series of articles.
So yes, he didn't write the series of articles, he only edited them and directed them. Wow, what a controversy!
Guess you can throw out the whole 30-year career then, and he's obviously lying about Lindzen, who himself admits to receiving money from oil companies (but not the amounts reported, as that would damage his credibility), regularly associates himself with PR firms like Heartland, regularly appears on blogs dedicated SOLELY to attacking AGW from any angle they can find, etc.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that some book jackets or website blurbs that Gelbspan didn't even write don't equate to him being 'discredited', and it definitely doesn't mean that what he claims is untrue. Most biographies you can read online state clearly that he edited and directed the pulitzer projects. As for the activism, if I had discovered a cause that inspired me to act, I would definitely do it... he was a journalist before he was an activist, writing highly regarded pieces on the FBI and the USSR.
The article I posted describes a public hearing where Lindzen and the usual group of 'skeptics' testified on behalf of an oil company. This is simply a fact... it was a public event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by article you didn't read
Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics—Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling—were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. [#1]
So he publicly testified on behalf of coal companies and still can be trusted, but copywriters making a mistake on a journalist's book jacket means the journalist can't be trusted.
Lindzen has been in the pocket of big oil for decades. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he has been paid to say things (I wouldn't rule it out, though), but I would definitely suggest that he is receiving attention/publicity that he otherwise wouldn't have (being so widely discredited and all). Regardless, he is not a reliable resource.
Last edited by Spatula City; 11-07-2014 at 10:32 AM..
Most of the liberals and greens who opine on this this issue constantly are nothing more than armchair "scientists" who think that an internet connection and access to Google makes them informed and critical thinkers on the subject when all they are really doing is cherry picking what they were pre-disposed to believe in anyway.
This coming from the guy who doesn't even know what the theory of AGW is, but dedicates hours and hours to condemning those who do.
Now you can post another paid-for opinion piece in Forbes to prove me wrong.
This coming from the guy who doesn't even know what the theory of AGW is, but dedicates hours and hours to condemning those who do.
Now you can post another paid-for opinion piece in Forbes to prove me wrong.
I know exactly what the theory of AGW is you dolt, I was pointing out that without the alarmism aspect it would have never become a political topic and none of us would be here discussing it.
There's no doubt the majority of the American public doesn't care about climate change. Doesn't make them right, though. The only referendum on climate change I care about is among scientists, and climate change wins out big time among scientists.
Did you ever consider scientists as a special interest group seeing as how big bucks are attached to their research? Do you get any research money from the government for a study to disprove climate change?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
