George Will on global warming

[Norman Stansfield]

Doug Giles?
The gun-totin' Jesus freak preacher?
The Clash-Point guy?
That Doug Giles?
And Thomas (Sell Your Kidneys For Cash) Sowell?
THOSE are your new expert climatologists?
Good luck.

No, they're columnists quoting climatoligists. Your fear of reading facts from experts is duly noted.

Let's see ... climatologists or Al Gore and Fenian.

Actually, a mushroom is smarter than Gore and Fenian combined.

Just ask Josh Heytveldt.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

The people whom I read -- whom you do not, because it dislodges your fragile little mind -- all have superior credentials to either Singer or Lindzen, and there are a lot more of them, and so that is why I choose to believe them. I've read Singer and Lindzen, and I find them unconvincing. You haven't read anything in its primary form -- just what's spoonfed to you by your favorite columnists and pet websites (Really, dude. Townhall is a festival of nitwits.) -- and we're all close-minded.
The Czech president? Do I have to bring up the Iranian guy and the Holocaust or the African presidents and the AIDS virus or the incumbent president of the United States to illustrate the danger of attaching yourself to the scientific views of politicians just because they also happen to be yours?
Foof.

 

[andyouare?]

Doug Giles?
The gun-totin' Jesus freak preacher?
The Clash-Point guy?
That Doug Giles?
And Thomas (Sell Your Kidneys For Cash) Sowell?
THOSE are your new expert climatologists?
Good luck.

No, they're columnists quoting climatoligists. Your fear of reading facts from experts is duly noted.

Let's see ... climatologists or Al Gore and Fenian.

Actually, a mushroom is smarter than Gore and Fenian combined.

See this is why it's hard to take your "debate" seriously, OT. You keep changing the subject and not answering questions.

Answer these two question that JayFarrar posed (I've been waiting for these answers for a while):

2) Why would all these scientists go to all the trouble, you seem to imply it is some global conspiracy. What?

All the skeptics throw out the MIT guy, yet you've got hundreds of scientists from larger and more prestigious places all over the globe, saying the exact opposite. What is their motivation?

Citing one scientist or one Drudge report doesn't cut it. There's literally hundreds of scientists saying one thing. Are they all wrong?

 

[old_tony]

The people whom I read -- whom you do not, because it dislodges your fragile little mind -- all have superior credentials to either Singer or Lindzen, and there are a lot more of them, and so that is why I choose to believe them. I've read Singer and Lindzen, and I find them unconvincing. You haven't read anything in its primary form -- just what's spoonfed to you by your favorite columnists and pet websites (Really, dude. Townhall is a festival of nitwits.) -- and we're all close-minded.
The Czech president? Do I have to bring up the Iranian guy and the Holocaust or the African presidents and the AIDS virus or the incumbent president of the United States to illustrate the danger of attaching yourself to the scientific views of politicians just because they also happen to be yours?
Foof.

The thing I really find funny is that in 10 years when all this man-caused global warming has been proved a hoax, you, Fenian, will be out there saying you knew it all along. I've seen enough of you to know with 100% certainty that that will be the case. I know you're old enough to remember the "next ice age" scare of the 70s. And I know you believed every word of it then, too.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

De Deense samenzwering van het globale verwarmen zal heersen!

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Ho-hum.
Well, the problem with a lot of the denial sources was this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
So, suddenly, Exxon Mobil, that liberal juggernaut of crazy Greenies, went and did this:
"ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year."

ExxonMobil -- Liberal thought police.

 

[old_tony]

Doug Giles?
The gun-totin' Jesus freak preacher?
The Clash-Point guy?
That Doug Giles?
And Thomas (Sell Your Kidneys For Cash) Sowell?
THOSE are your new expert climatologists?
Good luck.

No, they're columnists quoting climatoligists. Your fear of reading facts from experts is duly noted.

Let's see ... climatologists or Al Gore and Fenian.

Actually, a mushroom is smarter than Gore and Fenian combined.

See this is why it's hard to take your "debate" seriously, OT. You keep changing the subject and not answering questions.

Answer these two question that JayFarrar posed (I've been waiting for these answers for a while):

2) Why would all these scientists go to all the trouble, you seem to imply it is some global conspiracy. What?

All the skeptics throw out the MIT guy, yet you've got hundreds of scientists from larger and more prestigious places all over the globe, saying the exact opposite. What is their motivation?

Citing one scientist or one Drudge report doesn't cut it. There's literally hundreds of scientists saying one thing. Are they all wrong?

There are plenty of climatologists out there -- hundreds and thousands. And you try to diminish the words of the Czech president because of who reported it? It's all over the Internet, but Drudge was the quickest find of it in the Q&A format. It's not Drudge's words, but you have to paint it as though they are. Telling.

And if you don't think there's an agenda, you're a lot less smart than I originally gave you credit for.

Really, why do you think the left is trying so hard to shut down any debate. Now in Oregon the liberal governor is stripping and Oregon State professor of the title of "state climatologist" for simply disagreeing. Again, very telling.

Why does your side fear debate so much?

 

[old_tony]

Ho-hum.
Well, the problem with a lot of the denial sources was this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
So, suddenly, Exxon Mobil, that liberal juggernaut of crazy Greenies, went and did this:
"ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year."

ExxonMobil -- Browbeaten by the liberal thought police.

Fixed.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Ho-hum.
Well, the problem with a lot of the denial sources was this:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
So, suddenly, Exxon Mobil, that liberal juggernaut of crazy Greenies, went and did this:
"ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year."

ExxonMobil -- Browbeaten by the liberal thought police.

Guh-guh-guuuh.

Fixed again.

 

[Ellis Redding]

Why do you bother, Fenian? Neither of you ever will back down an inch.

 

[JayFarrar]

Really, why do you think the left is trying so hard to shut down any debate. Now in Oregon the liberal governor is stripping and Oregon State professor of the title of "state climatologist" for simply disagreeing. Again, very telling.

Oh dear God, I've been waiting for Old_Tony to drop this turd...
From the Oregonian

MILSTEIN (1/29/07): Taylor is not among the leading Oregon scientists, including [Mark] Abbott, whom Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked to help develop a state strategy on climate change. The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law.
"He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.
"He's not my weatherman."
The position of state climatologist was dissolved by the Legislature in 1989, Abbott said. Taylor runs the OSU-based Oregon Climate Service, which performs many of the same duties that the state climatologist once did, and OSU gave him the same title.

So, umm, no such postion has existed for the last 18 years.
Why does your side find honesty so frightening?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

He read it on all his favorite websites, Jay.
It must be true.
Also:
Taylor is not a “climatologist.” Taylor is a meteorologist. He does not possess a PhD or have a background in climatology.
2) He will not be fired. Taylor will not lose his job or income, which he gets paid by OSU.