Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

I could care less what they wrote.

That this is the case doesn't surprise me. That you'd admit it in public does.

Real Climate and all the fraudsters have zero credibility based on the proven falsification of data they have been caught doing.

I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. The truth is that you're afraid of debating the facts of the matter - of putting McIntyre's "analysis" up against Marcott et al's explanations. You're afraid because you know you don't actually have the facts on your side. Marcott's statements regarding carbon isotope dating are verifiably correct. His statement's make sense. McIntyre's requires a cornucopia of dishonesty and a large scale conspiracy. Occam says go with Marcott and Shakun.

You too have zero credibility.

Are you accusing me of lying? If so, put it up here and prove it. Otherwise shove it up your ass and jump.

..you are just another in a long line of sock puppets spewing your propaganda.

Again, whose puppet do you believe I am? I want some names. Is this something else you're actually afraid to get into? Maybe one day you'll learn to stop sticking your neck out like this.

Shakun et al has been proven false just like Mann's BS paper.

Show us some PROOF. Not just some other asshole badmouthing his betters. You said "proven". You're supposed to be a professor. You KNOW what that word means. Let's see it.

Unethical asshats like you and they don't care because scientific enquiry isn't your goal....political power and the theft of wealth is....

My goal is protecting the future in which my CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN will have to live. I couldn't care less about wealth and power. I view you as a direct threat to their well being. You are threatening my children, you stupid asshole.

Done repeatedly. Your inability to do a simple google search is duly noted.

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

 

[bripat9643]

That this is the case doesn't surprise me. That you'd admit it in public does.



I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. The truth is that you're afraid of debating the facts of the matter - of putting McIntyre's "analysis" up against Marcott et al's explanations. You're afraid because you know you don't actually have the facts on your side. Marcott's statements regarding carbon isotope dating are verifiably correct. His statement's make sense. McIntyre's requires a cornucopia of dishonesty and a large scale conspiracy. Occam says go with Marcott and Shakun.



Are you accusing me of lying? If so, put it up here and prove it. Otherwise shove it up your ass and jump.



Again, whose puppet do you believe I am? I want some names. Is this something else you're actually afraid to get into? Maybe one day you'll learn to stop sticking your neck out like this.



Show us some PROOF. Not just some other asshole badmouthing his betters. You said "proven". You're supposed to be a professor. You KNOW what that word means. Let's see it.



My goal is protecting the future in which my CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN and THEIR CHILDREN will have to live. I couldn't care less about wealth and power. I view you as a direct threat to their well being. You are threatening my children, you stupid asshole.

Done repeatedly. Your inability to do a simple google search is duly noted.

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

 

[Abraham3]

Done repeatedly. Your inability to do a simple google search is duly noted.

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

Someone else unfamiliar with the term "prove". McIntyre showed no such thing.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Then probably best if we don't knowingly enter the same room. Feel free to leave.

 

[PMZ]

Done repeatedly. Your inability to do a simple google search is duly noted.

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.

'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''

''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''

''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''

If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.

 

[PMZ]

World policy makers and politicians have discovered a cash cow called climate science to bleed the populace of advanced nations dry all in the name of "saving the planet".

And to trust politicians to "save the planet" is sheer lunacy considering they can't fix a damn thing including fixing pot holes.



Sadly true environmental issues have fallen by the wayside because they just don't have the allure, the rock star power of climate alarmism.

Pity.

I've been a serious conservationist all my life, specifically water purity and preservation and I find this climate garbage aka AGW that has been foisted on the planet by the likes of Al Gore absolutely appalling.

True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

I'm a conservationist. Not an environmentalist.

I no longer trust scientists who have their hand in the cookie jar called "research funds" given by governments or large foundations who have agendas all their own.

There are far too many who fit that category these days. Sold their souls and bend for their masters.

What are you trying to conserve if not the earth?

 

[PMZ]

World policy makers and politicians have discovered a cash cow called climate science to bleed the populace of advanced nations dry all in the name of "saving the planet".

And to trust politicians to "save the planet" is sheer lunacy considering they can't fix a damn thing including fixing pot holes.



Sadly true environmental issues have fallen by the wayside because they just don't have the allure, the rock star power of climate alarmism.

Pity.

I've been a serious conservationist all my life, specifically water purity and preservation and I find this climate garbage aka AGW that has been foisted on the planet by the likes of Al Gore absolutely appalling.

True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.

I can't tell. Are you saying that business is not each and every business following make more money regardless of the cost to others?

 

[PMZ]

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

The fact that you are here 24/7 makes it obvious that you don't work. You are either an unemployed loser or a kid still living with your parents....so what the hell would you know about business?

Try retired after a long and successful engineering career.

Sounds to me like you've completely run out if anti science arguments.

 

[PMZ]

That day is coming fast. Some warmers are saying that this latest IPCC release will be the death knell for the IPCC itself. No credibility left.

I think that history will judge the IPCC as the leading cause of the death of the conservative movement.

It is obvious by now that you don't think at all. You believe and in turn act on faith.

Is this the best of your anti science?

 

[PMZ]

World policy makers and politicians have discovered a cash cow called climate science to bleed the populace of advanced nations dry all in the name of "saving the planet".

And to trust politicians to "save the planet" is sheer lunacy considering they can't fix a damn thing including fixing pot holes.



Sadly true environmental issues have fallen by the wayside because they just don't have the allure, the rock star power of climate alarmism.

Pity.

I've been a serious conservationist all my life, specifically water purity and preservation and I find this climate garbage aka AGW that has been foisted on the planet by the likes of Al Gore absolutely appalling.

True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.

What's your stance on the extinction rate caused by a different climate? What's the record from previous climate change events?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.

'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''

''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''

''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''

If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.

Mann should show them his Nobel Prize!

 

[westwall]

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

Someone else unfamiliar with the term "prove". McIntyre showed no such thing.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Then probably best if we don't knowingly enter the same room. Feel free to leave.

That's because you are a religious fanatic. It is impossible to cure fanaticism.... just look at all the chuckleheads seeking their 72 virgins.... You are the same as them....

 

[PMZ]

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

Someone else unfamiliar with the term "prove". McIntyre showed no such thing.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Then probably best if we don't knowingly enter the same room. Feel free to leave.

That's because you are a religious fanatic. It is impossible to cure fanaticism.... just look at all the chuckleheads seeking their 72 virgins.... You are the same as them....

Apparently the difference between knowledge and faith eludes you.

When people have appropriate knowledge they'd be foolish not to trust it. When people are hoping that what they wish was true, was really true, that's faith.

They can look outwardly the same, but responses to certain questions often are very revealing about who knows and who wishes.

MDs know the science of Medicine. Shamans know faith. Sometimes illness or injury is cured while a shaman is present. That doesn't make them MDs.

 

[bripat9643]

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.

Only a gullible moron would accept Wikipedia as a valid source on any issue that is remotely political. Leftwingers have gone through every entering related to global warming and edited them to reflect the warmist dogma.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.

 

[bripat9643]

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

Someone else unfamiliar with the term "prove". McIntyre showed no such thing.

Yes he did, beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, nothing can be proved to a programmed drone like yourself who is only able to regurgitate what the priesthood tells you to regurgitate.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Then probably best if we don't knowingly enter the same room. Feel free to leave.

I'll feel free to take whatever measures I deem appropriate.

 

[westwall]

A Google search? What's duly noted is your complete failure to make an appropriate response.

1) Show us that you're not afraid to put McIntyre up against Marcott and Shakun.
2) Show us where you believe I've lied with the PROOF I did so.
3) Identify the poster of whom you believe me a puppet
4) Show us Shakun being PROVEN false - and Mann as well while you're at it.
5) Show us why I should not treat you as the threat to my children's well being that you actually, recklessly, ignorantly are.

I already posted a link to the paper by McIntyre that proves Mann is a con artist. Of course, you declined to read it. Then you demand proof again of Mann's methodological errors.

I treat you as a threat to my children's well being because that is exactly what you are.

Here's the word from Wikipedia on the slugfest between businessman McIntyre and climate scientist Mann.

'' The North Report was a 2006 report evaluating reconstructions of the temperature record of the past two millennia, providing an overview of the state of the science and the implications for understanding of global warming. It was produced by a National Research Council committee, chaired by Gerald North, at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science.''

''These reconstructions had been dubbed "hockey stick graphs" after the 1999 reconstruction by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH99), which used the methodology of their 1998 reconstruction covering 600 years (MBH98). A graph based on MBH99 was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), and became a focus of the global warming controversy over the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It was disputed by various contrarians, and in the politicisation of this hockey stick controversy the New York Times of 14 February 2005 hailed a paper by businessman Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick (MM05) as undermining the scientific consensus behind the Kyoto agreement. On 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, wrote joint letters referring to issues raised by the Wall Street Journal article, and demanding that Mann, Bradley and Hughes provide full records on their data and methods, finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[1][2] Boehlert said this was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and in November 2005 after Barton dismissed the offer of an independent investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Boehlert requested the review which became the North Report.[3]''

''The North Report went through a rigorous review process,[4] and was published on 22 June 2006.[5] It concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[6] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[7] Principal component analysis methodology which had been contested by McIntyre and McKitrick had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[8][9]''

If I was a betting man, my money would be on Mann having a field day in court.

Considering that Mann is flirting with contempt of court in Canada now, because of his refusal to release documents in Discovery, and his well known propensity for shooting his mouth off in inappropriate manner, I will take your bet.

Mann is going to lose, and lose big. The question is how many of the rats are going to go down with his little ship of fools...

 

[westwall]

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

The fact that you are here 24/7 makes it obvious that you don't work. You are either an unemployed loser or a kid still living with your parents....so what the hell would you know about business?

Try retired after a long and successful engineering career.

Sounds to me like you've completely run out if anti science arguments.

No, I'M retired after a long environmental geology career....and I am on here a third of the time you are. You either have no life, or you are being paid to spew here.

 

[westwall]

True environmentalists know that their power to change the world for the better comes from science and government.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

If you believe that business believes anything but make more money regardless of the cost to others, you've been had.

Al Gore earned $5,247 (some say $6,000 currently) per minute for his 2007 speech. An hour of Al Gore's environmental speech would cost you a minimum of $314,820 at his 2007 rate. (based on a British £ is equivalent to approximately $1.59 US Dollars currently.)Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300-per-minute green speech | Mail Online

Educators in a number of countries refused free videos of his speech due to 9 inaccuracies (not cited in article), which is against educational principles universally, plus his use of exaggeration and omission is considered misleading by many scientists, not to mention honest journalists. Some of his work is accurate, but his use of political negativity against rivals was another reason cited by some countries' educational societies that would harm their children by poisoning the well of their minds in future decision-making.

Before accusing conservatives and conservationists of littering the landscape with discarded beer bottles, many of us have never done such a thing in our whole lives, and many of us turn off lights and fans when we leave a room and have done so for a lifetime.

Forcing societies to bankrupt their governments so unproved theories can be exercised can result in a lot of human misery. In my book, that is unnecessary, unwise, foolhardy.

So if profit is bad for conservatives, why are three thousand speeches by Al Gore that netted him half a billion dollars okay? Do tell.

Edit: Also, some of us are not amused that wind turbines kill millions of birds per year across the planet; because of them, the osprey count in the bird count surveys has declined as have other birds whose migratory paths fall where windfarms have arisen. Who speaks for them? The green community is mute on death by windfarm for birds and death by tidal turbines on aquatic mammals and fish and other sea species.

What's your stance on the extinction rate caused by a different climate? What's the record from previous climate change events?

What extinction rate? Last time I checked there were thousands of new species being discovered yearly...


Top 10 New Species - 2012 | International Institute for Species Exploration

http://species.asu.edu/files/SOS2010.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.

It's easier when the 90% is a made up number.

 

[westwall]

Takes a lot of faith to go against 90% of the worlds scientist.

If it was indeed 90% of the worlds scientists I might agree with you, but, as that number is entirely fictitious, I am confident that the cult of AGW is on its way out.