Cold sun rising

You have no chance. You'd never see it coming.

There is no scientifically credible opposition.

How have you personally reduced your dependence on fossil fuels?

BTW, these didn't all meet their forward drop and reverse leakage specs.

-jsw, installing more recycled solar panels.

We're all laughing at you.

Bet you still beleive in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy too.

With a nice respectful question like that, you must be a liberal?

- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .

The FACT is that, at present, the overwhelming majority of scientific experts in the RELEVANT fields of climatology, etc., concur with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding global warming and mankind's contributions to it. Only a small minority of scientists, mostly from fields with no bearing on the subject, continue to disagree.

But if large and influential economic interests, primarily in the heavily polluting coal and oil industries, did not perceive a threat to their future profits arising from the obvious implications of anthropogenic global warming, there would even be that level of mostly ginned up public controversy or denial of these scientific facts, apart from a tiny handful of cranks, crackpots and contrarians.

They are following the model laid down by the U.S. tobacco industry in coping with the scientific fact that smoking causes cancer and other diseases. First, try to prevent any scientific research on the subject from ever being conducted. Then try to prevent the results from being disclosed, using methods such as economic coercion, threats of litigation, and seek special legislative protections to cut off research funding, bar research, and prevent public disclosure of findings. Once the scientific facts have publicly emerged, attack, intimidate and attempt to silence, discredit or undermine the scientists, their employers and funding, and the scientific or academic institutions involved. Lastly, pay other scientists to dispute the known facts and produce contrary results, and pay to get your propaganda published and to influence the news media, using hired advertising, PR, and crisis management firms.

Using these tactics, the tobacco industry was able to effectively delay actions to protect public health and thereby maintain their profits for decades, at the insignificant (to them) human cost of hundreds of thousands of early deaths and disabilities, and at a financial cost of untold millions of dollars borne by the public, not the tobacco companies.

We already know that heavy polluting industries are major direct causers and contributors to many hundreds of thousands of deaths and illnesses annually, so why would anyone expect them to have any greater concern or act any differently over global warming and the harm it will cause? After, the profits are theirs today, but the consequences are somebody else's in the future.

"I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable." - Jeremiah 2:7

"Do not defile the land where you live and where I dwell" - Numbers 35:34

That FACT is that the above is a major lie. The so-called 95% consensus is a PROVEN fabrication. Control of journals, employees, trade organizations and media does not produce facts only propaganda.

The IPCC is a POLITICAL organization not a scientific one. Hence all pronouncements are suspect for a political agenda (Trillion dollar tax tackling a non-problem. The idea that only "kooks" are "deniers" shows that it is all propaganda. And even if there WERE a true "consensus" science is never established by "majority vote". That is politics not science.

The FACT is that there has been no warming for 17 years now. THE FACT is that all the computer models of doom are TOTALLY WRONG! The FACT is that the more wrong the warmist models become the more the warmballers scream at how "certain" they are. And finally the FACT is that without warming there is NOTHING to drive all the "extreme weather" that the media screams is caused by "climate change".

Clearly the rest of this post is equally fraudulent and not worth reading.

One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head Oh my goodness! said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king."

On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.

"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."

So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."

"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."

So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.

"Oh no, don't go!" said ocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.

Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.

"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.

"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."

"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."

But wicked Foxy Woxy did not lead the others to the palace. He led them right up to the entrance of his foxhole. Once they were inside, Foxy Woxy was planning to gobble them up!

Just as Chicken Little and the others were about to go into the fox's hole, they heard a strange sound and stopped.

It was the king's hunting dogs, growling and howling. How Foxy Woxy ran, across the meadows and through the forests, with the hounds close behind. He ran until he was far, far away and never dared to come back again.

After that day, Chicken Little always carried an umbrella with her when she walked in the woods. The umbrella was a present from the king. And if -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell, Chicken Little didn't mind a bit. In fact, she didn't notice it at all.

Uh huh. Believe what you want, including the nonsensical idea that climate science can't discover facts about the climate, but climate science deniers can prove the "fact" that its all propaganda generated by the global warming conspiracy.

You climate science deniers like to point to those scientists who agree with you. The obvious counter to that rather meaningless claim is to point to the vastly larger number of scientists who concur with the consensus opinion. So don't complain about your own methodology being used to set the record straight. Also, a scientific consensus is not created by a "majority vote" or some sort of poll. It would be helpful if more people actually understood how science work is actually done in the real world.

The IPCC is far less "political" than, for example, the National Institutes of Health or NASA. It doesn't sponsor or conduct climate change research, set research parameters, or monitor how others collect data or conduct research. It doesn't answer to any government, taxing or regulatory authority. It is a scientific body, and it only collects, collates, assesses and reports the results of research from sources worldwide on the subject of climate change.

Its credibility is far greater than that of science deniers.

What you claim to be a "FACT" isn't a fact at all.

I have no doubt that some science deniers are of the kind who take children's stories and fairy tales, with their talking animals and other fantasy elements, as literally true and real. So be sure to always carry your umbrella; its the only certain protection there is against all the adverse effects of climate change, you know!

AND changing the follow-up field.

You know nothing about me. You have simply stated one of your fantasies. But your threats and aggression put the lie to the left's claims that violence comes from the right.

A great case for why your intended victims need firearms for self protection.

Who cares "why" you say things. The issue is whether what you say is right. You seem to think you can prove that by repeating your opinion.

"Terry Coombs" wrote in news:n224qs$u6h$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Hence the term "useful idiots" though I see very little use in them at all.

Rüdy Canôza wrote in news:n228rr$e21$4 @dont-email.me:

$3

Really? Are you creeping around my back door, cupcake? Are you threatening me, snowflake.

Anytime, piss pot.

Rüdy Canôza wrote in news:n228te$e21$5 @dont-email.me:

$2

And you say we are anti-science? You are pathetic. There is no credible evidnce. Except to useful idiots.

Rick Blaine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Ricki Baby, you've been duped. And not by experts either. Unless or until you start reducing your personal carbon footprint to that of a snail darter, go away. And when you do, well, stay away.

In a pinch, they are eatable.

Because you are.