Carly Fiorina's Climate Flip-Flop
| Wed Nov. 25, 2009 5:00 AM PST
It's fine for Republicans to express concern about climate change—as long as they don't run for national office, it seems.
Take the case of Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard executive and adviser to the McCain '08 campaign who is now seeking to unseat Barbara Boxer from her California Senate seat next year. I talked to Fiorina last year when she was the "Victory Chair" of the Republican National Committee specifically about climate change. At the time, she was happy to talk about McCain's climate plan and the need to act on the issue. "I think there is growing consensus that the issues of climate change and energy independence are inextricably linked," said Fiorina.
Climate change, Fiorina said, "matters to a lot of people," particularly young people. She was eager to talk about the notion that climate policy could help stimulate innovation and create jobs, and that a well-executed cap-and-trade scheme could spur economic development. "I think it's important that when we think about taking on some of the great challenges now as opposed to leaving them to future generations, we have to talk not only about Social Security and medical care, but also about leaving our planet cleaner for the next generation than we found it," she said.
Flash forward to an interview with reporters in D.C. last week, in which Fiorina basically shied away from all of those prior statements. While she acknowledged that climate change is a "serious issue," she also suggested the science on warming is less than conclusive—and that the public needs leaders with the "courage" to question it.
From the Mercury News:
Fiorina faced several questions about climate change, an issue in which Boxer is deeply involved. The Republican said that global warming demands a serious response, but when asked whether she would back mandatory caps on carbon emissions, Fiorina said she would not comment on a bill she hasn't read. As for what course of action she believes the government should take, Fiorina suggested engaging in bilateral talks with China to curb greenhouse gases, and easing regulations for alternative energy companies to build manufacturing plants.
When a reporter followed up by asking whether she believes in global warming, Fiorina said, "I think we should have the courage to examine the science on an ongoing basis."
Glad that courage is being used up to question climate science, rather than to buck the GOP party line on climate policies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
Hadley CRU and AGW --Debunked.
Submitted by avannavon on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 2:15 PM PST.
Oh, the temerity, or to use Obama's favorite word---the AUDACITY of Ms. Fiorina! Somewhere in the past couple years, she let new information and facts seep into her brain----how could that be an argument in favor of her election?
Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW, or "Global Warming Caused By Humans" is a politicized farce, a real egg-on-the-face for the British scientific community, and an embarrassment for the scientifically challenged everywhere.
The actual data proves that the earth is cooling and drying, not warming and melting. For example, the ice fields are declining for lack of new snow pack, not because they are melting faster. The sea is becoming more acidic---not because of human pollution, but because of increased undersea volcanic activity.
This whole AGW flap is another "fake science" hysteria similar to Rachel Carson's hype on DDT and The Population Bomb ---remember that one? We should all be wearing rags and eating dirt by now.
Ms. Fiorina obviously started thinking for her self and looking at the facts---the real untweakable facts---and decided that global warming was a hoax. Good on her for that, and bad on you, Mojo, for continuing to perpetuate a theory that has been thoroughly, resoundingly, and deliciously DEBUNKED.
p.s.---It may also comfort you to know that global temperatures were five degrees higher during the Middle Ages without the earth coming to an end.
When the mind is given over
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 6:53 PM PST.
When the mind is given over entirely to an ideology there is no room for new facts.
For the hard core liberal, real world experiences are channeled through a particular matrix which rejects inconvenient truths and allows only ideologically acceptable bumper sticker slogans to come through. Trained minds. Locked down tight. Sad thing.
Resounding silence from the whole world on the emails proving dishonest methods and cover-ups used by the global warming scientists. Obama will prop up the big lie by dropping in at the meeting on his way to pick up his prize.
It's time to discuss again the religious nature of the global warming scam and to consider the source of such a gigantic humanity destroying trick.
"Oh, the temerity, or to use
Submitted by DaveD (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 6:20 AM PST.
"Oh, the temerity, or to use Obama's favorite word---the AUDACITY of Ms. Fiorina! Somewhere in the past couple years, she let new information and facts seep into her brain"
"Drill, Baby, Drill"!
Misquoted the privious post
Submitted by DaveD (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 6:22 AM PST.
I actually meant to respond to this comment: "real world experiences are channeled through a particular matrix which rejects inconvenient truths and allows only ideologically acceptable bumper sticker slogans to come through. Trained minds. Locked down tight. Sad thing."
We're talking about Palin now?
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 4:11 PM PST.
"When the mind is given over entirely to an ideology there is no room for new facts." (Holy Banality, Batman- er, Anonymous.)
You seem literate enough, true, but are you so naive as to believe every one of your tired cliches aren't equally valid when applied by opposing ideology? I don't want to be the one to tell you that kinda makes you a moron in terms of offering valid debate, but ...
Why quote Obama?
Submitted by DaveD (not verified) on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 6:18 AM PST.
"Oh, the temerity, or to use Obama's favorite word---the AUDACITY of Ms. Fiorina! Somewhere in the past couple years, she let new information and facts seep into her brain"
Why use the word of someone you obviously despise? Wouldn't GW be a better source for you? And the charge he leveled against John Kerry in '04; she is a 'flip-flopper'! She was *for* the science on global warming before she was against it!
I wonder, do you believe that giant island of debris floating out in the Pacific is caused by human activity?
Global warming (yes, warming)
Submitted by Doug Zabel (not verified) on Wed Dec. 2, 2009 4:02 AM PST.
As for the deniers' assertion that the warming trend has flattened over the past few years, or even that the Earth's temperature is cooling, I refer them to this site:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/nasa-hottest-year-on-record-2009-2...
I'm "glad" too.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Nov. 25, 2009 9:05 PM PST.
Nice wrap-up. I'm also "glad", and I'm glad that your gladness echos mine.
Does anybody take this woman
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Nov. 26, 2009 7:07 AM PST.
Does anybody take this woman seriously anymore?
You mean avannavon?
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 3:50 PM PST.
Uh, no.
But that's not to say we--I--don't hold the highest of hopes for both her and marshabar. One day, they'll stop by MoJo with a credible, substantiated assertion. I just know it.
Meantime, they're good for giggles, no?
Trash science and trash islands
Submitted by Marshabar on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 6:10 PM PST.
What has one got to do with the other?
"Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/75066562.html?page=2&c=y
Indeed climate "scientists" should not be pushed around by people with common sense and open minds. They should not be FORCED to make up lies
Oh, David, oh, oh, David
Submitted by avannavon on Fri Nov. 27, 2009 9:16 PM PST.
I was here when Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring and lived through the DDT hysteria and I note that the World Health Organization now says that at least 300 million lives have been lost because of it. Think of it---Rachel Carson as a mass murderer?
I was here when The Population Bomb was on the headlines and all my friends were talking about not ever having children to "help" forestall the "inevitable" mass starvation that was supposed to wipe out mankind by the 1990's. And now I see the same old hacks who believe in all that crap ranting and raving about Anthropogenic Global Warming.....
It was five degrees warmer during the Middle Ages and the world didn't end. One big volcano produces more carbon dioxide in one eruption that we do in a decade. When the plants have more carbon dioxide, they grow more lush and counterbalance things. No, dear heart, the garbage whirlpool in the Pacific is real. AGW is not. We've been taken for fools again a la Carson and The Population Bomb. See the scandal erupting over the Hadley CRU emails and see for yourself.
At last, a soapbox for my nutjob right-wing views!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 1:26 AM PST.
Dear Idiot Commenters above,
If you aren't an actual climate scientist, nobody cares what the hell you have to say about global warming, or anything else where you have no idea what you're talking about, as is obviously the case here. Go back to watching your FOX News and Glenn Beckkk, Bubba.
While We Can't Expect Mother Jones to Cover Climategate...
Submitted by Trashhauler (not verified) on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 7:25 PM PST.
Anonymous wrote: "If you aren't an actual climate scientist, nobody cares what the hell you have to say about global warming, or anything else where you have no idea what you're talking about, as is obviously the case here."
___________________
It doesn't take a climatology degree to understand:
Discussions of withholding or destroying data
Scheming to avoid the legal requirements of FOIA requests
Manipulation of the peer review process to eliminate real scrutiny
Expressions of dismay at not being able to defend their findings
Treating reasonable skepticism as heretical activity
Something's rotten when scientists aren't interested in the free exchange of data and make model algorythms secret. And we are supposed to remake all of society based on this stuff?
Tut, tut. . .
Submitted by Marshabar on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 9:03 AM PST.
You really should attempt to let a little light in there. Your superiors hate you as much as they hate the rest of humanity. Snapping your jaws and hissing isn't exactly a great way to make your point to people who engage is discourse.
"""This is what they did — these climate “scientists” on whose unsupported word the world’s classe politique proposes to set up an unelected global government this December in Copenhagen, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all formerly free markets, to tax wealthy nations and all of their financial transactions, to regulate the economic and environmental affairs of all nations, and to confiscate and extinguish all patent and intellectual property rights."" Monckton
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-the...
Wait. You're suggesting that you, yourself, engage in 'discourse'?
Perhaps we ought to define discourse, Marsha.
Readers can scroll through the rest of this blog thread and decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, I've blown perfectly good water through my nose and onto my keyboard while reading your said 'discourse'. Gotta clean up.
>The Population Bomb
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 11:34 AM PST.
>The Population Bomb ---remember that one? We should all be wearing rags and eating dirt by now....
Wow, the Big Lie tactic. Let's check your facts there dittoboys:
The Population bomb was published in 1968. Look at a chart of the world population growth rate:
So a strong case can be made that worst-case scenario didn't happen *due* to that theory. Your hysteria about the effects of the first-world DDT ban are another smear based on lies
>One big volcano produces more carbon dioxide in one eruption that we do in a decade...
ANOTHER LIE! Wow you're making it easy. That one's not even remotely true:
the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions
Further the Medieval Warm Period wasn't 5c warmer than today. 5c higher *globally* would have been catastrophic!
It was at most 0.2 to 0.4c warmer as a global average - if that: "Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century."
Re "unelected global government". Uh huh. WTF kind of glue are you sniffing?
Where are you getting thus cruft?
A bunch of Warmers talking to themselves and Wikipedia?
Submitted by Marshabar on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 12:05 PM PST.
Why not just gaze at your navel??
>A bunch of Warmers talking
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 12:22 PM PST.
>A bunch of Warmers talking to themselves and Wikipedia?
Good response. Factual, and well argued!
Hint: The world is not built out of stories. It's built out of atoms. These are not culture war issue, despite attempts to frame it as such. The physical world doesn't give a rats's ass what your or my political leanings or beliefs are.
If you make a coherent argument about a real world issue that references physical facts, most people will consider it despite your political leanings, including me - and I would expect the same in return.
But if you make arguments founded on cruft and showing a basic science illiteracy, with wildly paranoid accusations, then I have no reason to take you seriously.
>A bunch of Warmers talking
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 12:24 PM PST.
>A bunch of Warmers talking to themselves and Wikipedia?
Good response. Factual, and well argued! Take a look at those links. They contain further links to original sources.
Hint: The world is not built out of stories. It's built out of atoms. These are not culture war issue, despite attempts to frame it as such. The physical world doesn't give a rats's ass what your or my political leanings or beliefs are.
If you make a coherent argument about a real world issue that references physical facts, most people will consider it despite your political leanings, including me - and I would expect the same in return.
But if you make arguments founded on cruft and showing a basic science illiteracy, with wildly paranoid accusations, then I have no reason to take you seriously.
Apologies for the double
Submitted by Bruce the Canuck (not verified) on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 12:24 PM PST.
Apologies for the double post.
Mythology 101
Submitted by Marshabar on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 5:49 PM PST.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming.
Substantiation of your 'Facts'?
Submitted by ktward on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 7:23 PM PST.
Links, dude. It's the internet after all, easy-peasy. Take a tip from Bruce the Canuck.
Both you and avannavon proffer all kinds of strong opinions with zero substantiation. Are you here just to read your own thoughts, or do you actually wish to offer valid, corroborated perspective?
Just asking.
pajamasmedia is substantiation???
Submitted by ktward on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 10:47 PM PST.
No, you come now. (chuckling my arse off here.)
Bruce also had two other highly professional non-wiki links. Got any relevant comments on those?
Oh wait! Now I remember. Warmers don't accept non-tampered
Submitted by Marshabar on Sat Nov. 28, 2009 9:16 PM PST.
evidence. They suppress it.
It's like talking to lizards. You know there's a little brain in there somewhere but, man is it hard to find.
Go stare at Wikipedia and your navel for further facts and insights.
Viscount Christopher Monckton is, as you so quaintly put it,
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 6:42 AM PST.
a 'denier,' and as such he is 'denied' access to the Democrat Propaganda Arm formerly known as the mainstream media. He is also 'denied' publication in what you call 'science' journals. For more information please read the emails between 'scientists' at East Anglia.
And so, Monckton takes the opportunity to speak his mind wherever possible, even Pajamas Media, a widely read and credible internet news source.
If you prefer to have filtered moon-bat regurgitation for your news source, be my guest.
""""""""Marshabar- you're making fun of a wiki user, while your single supporting link on this thread is to pajamasmedia?""""""""
You fringies.
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 12:00 PM PST.
Ah, Marshabar. You and avannavon, you're a hoot and a half, I'll give you that.
Let's first mention that Monckton holds no science degree, not even on a BS level. (There's a joke in there, but I digress ...) By all accounts, he is not a scientist of any discipline much less climatology. So it should come as no surprise that his, ahem, questionable conclusions on climate change--or AGW, pick whatever term suits you--might come under scrutiny from the scientific community at large; you know, the real scientists. As well, Monckton's non-science associations and affiliations are about as far right as one can ideologically travel.
That said, your support of his altogether flimsy AGW argument tells me pretty much all I need to know about your political leanings. I think it's safe to say that no one will ever accuse you of any inconvenient critical thinking.
So, IYHO, any news source outside of the fringe factories (pajamasmedia, maybe newsbusters et al?) is, wait, let me get this right, 'moon-bat regurgitation'. Do correct me if I'm wrong; unlike Sarah, I'll bet you could give me a nice long list of the news/info sources you deem credible. I could too, if you want them, and there might be a surprise or two among mine. I won't presume though, so just ask.
All that said, I can't imagine what you find fit for consumption here at MoJo. Which MoJo reporter(s), specifically, do you find credible? Any at all?
Without benefit of an immediate reply, I suspect you simply like the self-righteous sound of your own voice, as it were. No one here cares if you believe you're clever throwing around pejorative mudpies, just that you've something substantive to proffer to the dialogue- contradictory or otherwise. There's tons of worthwhile debates to be had regarding AGW specifically, but Monckton's babble and well-earned lack of science cred isn't among them.
So far, across multiple MoJo threads, I've seen zero credible substance from you. So pony up, already.
For interested readers, below are a few links highlighting some of the best of Marshabar's hero, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
An engaging read, with lots of links, and I chuckled at this excerpt :
'...[Monckton], who appears to be one of our national aristocratic treasures, sharing the three traits (being underinformed, being overconfident, and being in possession of an outrageously disproportionate portion of the national wealth) that readers in the U.S. will have come to know and love through Prince Charles."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/11/14/the-perils-o...
What some of the most highly-noted degreed climatologists (*real* scientists, Marshabar) have to say about Monckton's AGW opinions:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
And because I sometimes get a twisted kick out of poking people in the eye, here's a well-referenced wiki page on Monckton; Marshabar, feel free to let me know where wiki has it wrong. Seriously. I wanna know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton...
What does a science degree have to do with it?
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 1:01 PM PST.
Gad, don't tell me you trust all people with science degrees willy nilly? Hint: some people with science degrees are bought and paid for LIARS.
And it doesn't take a science degree to be informed. And it DOES take an open mind and a little common sense to understand what is going on in the world.
Higher mathematics I will leave to mathematicians.
Climate theory I will not leave to ideologically motivated useful idiot "scientists."
Climate science is not hard science. Computer models did not spring perfectly and fully formed from the sea. They are the result of bias. And the results are tinkered with so much the "scientists" don't even know what to make of it anymore.
The myth of global warming, which used to be global cooling, is a devilishly clever, devilishly intricate scheme to form the foundation of a one world government. The notion of global warming has it all.
A goddess. A saviour. Sinners. Absolution. Penance. Religious ecstasies. Forgiveness. Salvation. Green paradise for the worthy.
It's a big lie.
Hope to God you wake up.
You don't disappoint, Marsh.
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 2:54 PM PST.
Uh-huh. All those bona fide scientists with science degrees are 'liars' (or under the sway of 'liars'), and you & Monckton believe--both non-scientists--that you've an indisputable higher sense of, uh, common sense.
What a knee-slapper.
Which begs the question: are you at all familiar with scientific methodology? Even the teensy tiniest bit? One does not need to be a scientist to understand this.
Btw, since you brought it up, Monckton is not a mathematician either, which might actually contribute positively to his cred. Point of fact, it may have helped him enormously while a political appointee as a so-called 'economic adviser'.
So to be clear, Marshabar, by hoping to God that I 'wake up', you're actually hoping that I desert all current AGW scientific knowledge and, instead, follow the debunked ramblings of an altogether unqualified Euro-Noble, whose followers reside only among the defined 'fringe' of political and scientific sensibilities.
Do I have that right?
Damn, Marsha. Much as I'd like to, you make it impossible to take seriously anything you have to say.
Good heavens, KT, do you believe that the line of scholarship is
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 3:40 PM PST.
still intact? It takes honesty to maintain scholarship. A left-wing ideology co-opted scholarship many years ago, even before the 1960's when it 'appeared' to happen.
Yes they are liars, the climate scientists who are trying to invent global warming. Have you read the emails the whiste-blower at East Anglia released?
Yes I am familiar with scientific methodology. Yes I know how easy it is and how tempting it is to bend things, especially when your funding depends on a predetermined outcome.
These are not sacred saints we are talking about. Their numbers do not add up. Their models fail. They squelch dissent.
They are a new dark age.
Good Heavens is right.
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 5:08 PM PST.
Wait. You understand scientific methodology to be 'easy'? I said it's easy to 'understand'; it's not in any way easy to implement and ensure integrity. It's quite exacting, in fact. No wiggle room. You must not know any scientists. No surprise there.
It's been a ride, Marsha, but I've no more time for this nonsense. Sorry. You've clearly an incurious, small and unyielding paradigm, and any information that doesn't fit within its tight boundaries is part of, apparently, a global scientific/academic conspiracy to completely f**k things up and usher us into a dark age. ('Dark age'? Dial back the Beck, dude.)
If you've any critical sensibilities left at all, perhaps you'll click the following link regarding those Anglia emails you're so eager to embrace as 'evidence' in that great global-scientific/academic-collaborative-hoax idea you're pandering in rainbow colors.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
One last thing, Marsha. Think about it: there's a *reason* why no one outside of your own little ideological tent takes you seriously. Cop a clue already.
Peace.
Mythology 102
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 4:35 PM PST.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
Crikey, Marsha.
Submitted by ktward on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 5:18 PM PST.
Still no substantiation for your 'facts'? Even after Bruce the Canuck blasted your last 'fact'sheet to bits with supporting data?
All we're asking for is credible substantiation. That's it. Throw a corroborating link in there for every purported 'fact'. I'm betting you just copy/pasted from another site anyway, right?
C'mon. While other MoJo bloggers may want to see you go down in credibility flames, I'm rooting for you.
Diagram the sentence, KT.
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 5:54 PM PST.
It may be a little clearer to you then.
[[[Yes I know how easy it is and how tempting it is to bend things, especially when your funding depends on a predetermined outcome.]]]
Let's see if I can get my material "peer reviewed" by your
Submitted by Marshabar on Sun Nov. 29, 2009 5:46 PM PST.
warmer "scientists." Funny, huh?
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/...
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002530/the-great-climate-change-scanda...
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2009/11/the-day-climate-change-peer-rev...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_t...
It's the internet, easy-peasy. Grab a clue. Wakey wakey. . . .
Oh Golly, nobody wants to argue with me anymore . . . .
Submitted by Marshabar on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 7:33 PM PST.
was it something I said?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
