h1

Faith over Fact Every Damn Time!

4 April, 2009

One of the aspects of our political system is the way it relishes expertise.  Our elected representatives, senators, governors, and President, are all of the highest caliber.  The best and the brightest. Experts in the art of governance. Honest men and women who always put the health of the country over the finances of their friends.  The witnesses called to testify before these august legislators, providing expert advice, aid immeasurably.  And, in the United States Congress, this process has been on display this week during testimony before the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

John Shimkus (R-Ill (seriously, Illinois, what the fuck were ya’ll smoking when you elected this Christianist whackaloon?)) just may have, when paired with the famed global-warming denialist Lord Monckton, created more stupidity in one hearing than has been seen since the Republicans kowtowed to Ollie North.

(From Deltoid):

Folks are commenting on John Shimkus’ act with Monckton at the Congressional hearing on adaptation to climate change. For example, PZ Myers:

Shimkus explain how he knows CO2 is not a problem. It’s because the Bible is the inerrant word of his god, and he knows god isn’t going to end the world with global warming.

Steve Benen

There’s a genuine policy discussion to be had about climate change. If policymakers like Shimkus and Barton represent the mainstream of House Republican thought, this discussion won’t be bipartisan. Indeed, for humanity’s sake, it can’t be.

Kevin Grandia:

Republicans don’t want to hear from real scientists like the climatologists at NASA and the National Academy of Sciences. They prefer to hear only from people who parrot the right wing’s forgone conclusions — what’s good for Big Business and polluting industries is best for America.

Fossil fuel pollution equals life, and anyone who says otherwise hates salad.

The above, however, was merely the tip of the melting iceberg.  E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, raised the stupidity to a new level.

….When God finished His creation, “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Do you think he would have judged a fragile system biased by unidirectional feedbacks toward destruction that way? No, He would not. Indeed, the global destruction of the Flood required His supernatural intervention (Genesis 6–8), after which He promised Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man . . .; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:21–22)–the repeated pairs of opposites being the poetic device called merism, implying that God had committed Himself to ensuring that all the cycles needed for human (and other) thriving would continue.

…snip…

For that reason, I happily join with Lord Monckton in saying, “The right response to the non-problem of ‘global warming’ is to have the courage to do nothing.”

In other words, we need to ignore the evidence, ignore the melting arctic icd sheets, ignore the melting glaciers in Antarctica, massive forest fires, flooding, larger storms and rising global (not local!) temperatures and do nothing because god(s) would not allow climate change.  I guess if humans (by liberating tens of millions of years of sequestered carbon in a century) can have a negative effect on the environment, then god(s) must not be perfect?  You have got to be shitting me!

We should do nothing.  Keep burning fossil fuels.  Don’t invest in research for alternative energy.  Just keep sending our money to the oil and coal companies.  And they can keep supporting politicians like Shimkus.  Nice circle jerk there, assholes!

I have railed against faith based governing before.  I will most likely do it again.  This, however, is such an egregious example that I am almost speechless.  Faith in the Bible is not a valid strategy for keeping the earth livable for our children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren.  Faith in 2,000 year old myths versus the rigorous competition of scientific discovery and publication.  Gee.  Which do you suppose the American Hezbollah (the Party of God (GOP)) will embrace?  Faith or reason?

Advertisements

26 comments

  1. what are you smoking? all the politicians up there are idiots. Most cannot even add.


  2. Marianne: The first paragraph was sarcasm. It would be nice if our government did run on facts, but that just doesn’t happen.

    And I am not smoking (I’m in the house). But I do like a good maduro cigar, or a nice briar with some mellow black cavendish, and a shot of blended scotch.


  3. How do asshats like these get elected? How did they get on this committee? I can only figure that maybe their colleagues figured it would be the one where they could inflict the least damage. If these idiots actually succeed in blocking reform and regulation efforts, we are all in deep shit.


  4. Chappie: They get elected by being more conservative than anyone else. He’s on the committee because the Republican Party will do anything to keep the oil and coal companies smialing. He’s there because his colleagues do think he will block any action; emerging technology companies tend to donate to Democratic candidates while Republicans attract established money because the Republicans give big tax breaks to profitable old companies which then donate to their campaigns. And yes, we are in deep shit. And yes, I am cynical.


  5. Global warming deniers… -_- *sigh* In such a situation you can can use some of their so called ‘logic’ (like Pascal’s wager) and slap them in the face with it. They may not think that global warming exists, but we should do something to prevent it anyway because what if it is true? 😉
    Of course it would be far more preferable that they look at some actual evidence and research carried out by people far more knowledgeable than themselves, but I guess that’s just wishful thinking. >_> Common sense is not so common…


  6. Insertlifehere: And anthropogenic global warming has a great deal of actual evidence, so Pascal’s Wager would actually make sense. But, as I said to Chappie, facts have nothing to do with it. Some companies (Exxon, Peabody, to name two) are afraid their profits will fall if the government reacts and thus buy congresscrittes to head it off (or at least delay it).


  7. Billy, let’s review what you refer to as facts.
    It might interest you to know that ice sheets have melted at many points in our global history. If we had the ability to produce satellite photos from say 1907, you’d see that many areas of the arctic becoming navigable by ship now, were navigable by ship then. Somehow man and the polar bears survived. Speaking of Polar Bears, when gore said in AIT that a significant number of polar bears had drowned, did you know that the paper he was quoting only mentioned four polar bears. That’s right Billy, just four. Is that significant to you Billy.

    As for the antactic having melting ice sheets. Their hasa been melting around the edges, but the center is getting thicker. Overall, there is actually more ice in the antarctic now. As for melting ice sheets, I love what a glacier expert in AK said once. Yes the sheets melt once a year, we call that spring…LOL Often times when one glacier is getting smaller, one not so far away is increasing but somehow those photos never make it into books that support AGW. Hmmmm, wonder why?

    You’re not going to like this one, but environmentalist are responsible for the forest fires, not AGW. You see Billy, unlike native Americans, who understood the value of actually managing the underbrush of a forest, environmentalist around the globe have successfully lobbied their governments to “do nothing” and allow nature to take its course. Many of the fires we’re seeing now are the product of decade worth of underbrush (fuel) building up. Great job to all the Rachel Carlson fans who might be reading this. While it doesn’t rival the tens of millions of people who died from maleria when her efforts resulted in a global ban on DDT, it’s a close second.

    If you have evidence that flooda are now worse than before man began releasing CO2 in the atmoshere, let’s have it. Otherwise drop the tired old AGW alarmists reference. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for a reply on this one.

    Stronger storm? I suspect that this is an reference to Katrina. For your information Billy, Katrina was a catagory three hurricane when it hit New Orleans. It is ludicrous beyond belief to measure hurricanes by the dollar amount of the damage they cause as opposed to the category in which they fall. Man has gotten better at putting more valuable property in the way of storms, but that doesn’t mean the storms are getting stronger. In fact, if you do what Gore didn’t (but Monckton did) and adjust the dollar damage of storms to reflect present day dollars, you’ll see that even from a dollar damage standpoint hurricanes are not getting stronger. It’s so funny how AIG supporters talk about the fact that we are now having more storms. Let me say this very slowly Billy: Doppler radar hasn’t been around long.

    What that means Billy is that we haven’t been having more storms, but instead our ability to detect them has increased. 100 years ago a storm would develop of coast, fizzle out and nobody would know the difference. Now it’s detected and counted. Please tell me you understand the logic of this Billy, please tell me you get it.

    Perhaps youcan tell me when AGW alarmist will stop relying on unreliable surface data and start prefering satellite and weather balloon numbers which aren’t exactly painting the same picture. When the USSR was falling apart, hundreds of their weather stations stopped reporting data. Seems the silly Soviets were more worried about the collapse than collecting weather data. Global temperature went up as a result of these stations in the colder part of the globe closing. Funny, I’ve never heard a word about that from the mainstream media. As much as you’d like to think the science is in as far as whether the planet is still warming, many credible scientists believe that Earth is heading into another cooling period. Not to worry Billy, when that happened in the 70s man and industry and need for more pollution control was cited (by environmentalists) as the cause then too. You’ll still be able to fight against corporate america and industry. No matter what the weather trend, man is always the cause. I’m not sure why we had weather cycles before man began releasing CO2 into the sky, but we can discuss that another time.

    I’ll leave you with one irony Billy. I too am very much for developing alternative engery sources, but not for the same reason you are. I support it in the name of gaining energy independence. Unfortunately, moving ahead too fast causes more problems than it solves. For example Bio-Fuel mandates are driving up the price of food worldwide. When you have some time Google the Mexican Tortilla Riot.

    Yours Truly,
    Dash RIPROCK III
    Founder and Publisher
    HootervileGazette.com


  8. Diprock: Um. Yeah. Thanks for stopping by. Thanks for giving a perfect example of what I have been talking about. Here’s a suggestio: trace the funding of groups like the Heartland Institute and other AGW denialist groups. Try just a little reality.


  9. Billy, Here is an idea for you. Trace the funding of Gore and other alarmists. Trace the grant money too. Do you think Gore has received any money from alternative energy groups. No not the great NostraGormous.

    Perhaps you should read Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner. He worked for Enron and points out that the Kyoto agreement would provide energy companies with a price fixing opportunities beyond their wildest dreams. He also points out that traditional energy is heavily invested in alternative energy. So from your perspective there are no longer clear cut good guys and bad guys.

    Thousands of scientists around the world are now coming out of the global skeptic’s closet. Sorry Billy, not all of them are on the take from big energy.

    AIT was filled with lies. The UN IPCC has abandoned the hockey stick graph that once was the centerpiece of its report. Even the National Academy of Science has very softly but clearly
    criticized the Mann graph. Not Gore, he just keeps on repeating that lunacy.

    You actually are a perfect example of what Climate Realists laugh about. Someone shoves a packet of facts down your throat and you come back with that tired old BS about all climate realists being on the take from big energy without addressing a single claim in the argument.

    If AGW were a slam dunk, Gore’s film AIT would not have contained so many lies. Frankly, the science is rarely over. AGW alarmists have never had a consensus, but even if he had, it would have been meaningless. There was once a consensus that the world was flat. Once a consensus that the sun orbited around the Earth. Once a consensus that the dangers of DDT far outweighed the increase in malaria that would result from its banning. A consensus alone means nothing, but it’s really a mute point since AGW alarmist never had one.

    Seriously Billy, try a little objective reading. Follow that link to SPPI and ignore the lies you’ve been told about all AGW skeptics being on the take from big energy. I know you’re an atheist and AGW probably along with Evolution and Abortion have filled that void for you, but give a little objective reading a chance. If you’re strong in your AGW religious faith, you should have nothing to fear from giving it a try.

    The truth speaks for itself. If you decide to read Monckton’s “A Reply to John Houghton” you’ll be angered by the differences between the actual UN IPCC report and the summary for policy makers that is typically the only part of the report seen by anyone outside of the UN IPCC.

    Once again, we’ll discuss the Hypocrisy of Gore’s lifestyle on another day. I notice, you chose not to post my response regarding politicians who can’t do math. Can’t say that I blame you, does make three big time AGW supporters look rather silly.

    Dash


  10. Marianne, I could not agree with you more. They can’t add; especially democrats who support global warming. Barack Obama once said that he had been to 57 states, Joe (the human gaffe machine Biden) said that Jobs was a three letter word, and Nancy Pelosi said that every month the United States didn’t have a recovery pack, 500 MILLION (yes she said Million) American’s would lose their jobs. I’ve even designed a cartoon attacking the lack of math skills of these three AGW supporters. Here is the link: http://www.hootervillegazette.com The cartoon strip is at the bottom of the first page. If you click on the cartoon, it is a link to a blog post I placed on Townhall.com You’ll find links to the actual vids there.

    It’s funny how so many people don’t even know that methane is often burned in green houses to enrich plants with extra CO2. I’ve seen plant experts go on and on about how beneficial CO2 is for plants causing them to need less water, producer larger, tastier, fruit etc… Most plant experts will tell you that the ideal CO2 level for growing plants is about 1500 ppm. Much higher than we have in our atmosphere. Most people don’t even know that humans exhale CO2. If the general public were aware of either of these two aforementioned facts, I doubt we’d see CO2 being called a pollutant.

    As for Lord Monckton, I’ve reviewed his work, viewed his film, and find him to be quite credible. While AGW supporters like to attack the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” I’ve yet to see an AGW alarmist successfully attack The Third Viscount of Brenchley’s work. Monckton’s work can be found in its entirety at the following link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/

    His film Apocalypse? No! demonstrates the far superior grip he has on the science compared to Al Gore. It may be purchased at the following link:
    http://www.greatswindle.com/

    Alarmists should trying listening to someone other than Al Gore, James Hansen, or Kevin Grandia for a change. Try a little objective reading. It will do you good. I actually found a site that gives both sides of the argument equal voice.
    http://climatechange-globalwarming.com/
    It’s the one site on the net that doesn’t take sides in the debate.

    As for the word “Faith” being used in the title, I would submit that it is AWG alarmists who treat their opinion more like a religion. When one hears James Hansen making the suggestion that climate realists should be criminally prosecuted, and Andrew Dessler (co-author of The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change) entitle a blog “Should Global Warming Deniers Be Burned at The Stake?” It’s hard to objectively place them on the rational side of the debate. I’ll save the hypocrisy of Al Gore’s lifestyle and the more than 35 errors in his film for another post.

    Dash RIPROCK III
    Publisher and Founder
    HootervilleGazette.com


  11. Dash, do you feel citing the Bible as evidence one way or another on the global warming debate is a sound approach, or totally ridiculous?


  12. Philly: He’s in total denialist woo-land. It’s all a conspiracy. Virtually every scientist in the world is in on the global warming conspiracy (according to people like Riprock). Never mind the sheer impossibility of conspiracies with more than a handful of people. Never mind the self-correcting nature of scientific research. Never mind that the way to get noticed as a young scientist is to point out misinterpreted data or, even better, a large gaping hole in a theory. Never mind that any climatologist looking to make a name would be all over these supposed holes. Its all a conspiracy. And, like the best conspiracies, there is not proof and the lack of proof proves the conspiracy.

    Fact: Global carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been in tens of thousands of years.

    Fact: Since about 1880, the global adjusted mean temperature has been rising (9 of the 10 hottest years on record globally have been in the past 10 years or so).

    Fact: Species are disappearing because of global climate change (see pika for an example).

    Fact: Vast tracts of trees in west are either dead or close to it because of a boring beetle. The beetle has extended its range northwards and upwards taking advantage of warmer temperatures. This is being seen globally.

    Fact: The ice sheet around Antarctica is melting and breaking up.

    Fact: Glaciers worldwide are melting.

    Fact: The Arctic ice sheet is melting faster than the median predictions.

    Fact: One of the predictions for a warmer climate included dryer dry seasons and wetter wet seasons in the southeast. It is happening.

    Fact: Al Gore’s personal life has nothing to do with this, it is a distraction used to create noise.

    Fact: the UN IPCC is, if anything, an incredibly conservative document which downplays how fast and how bad things could get.

    Fact: The thousands of scientists whoe “are now coming out of the skeptic’s closet” are, for the most part, people who are disagreeing about details.

    Fact: The Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists are using exactly the same tactics that tobacco companies used to deny that smoking causes cancer; and they are using the same tactics that creationists use to push their wild-ass guess of the week.

    Fact: You, sir, are a gomer woo-meister.

    May reality and openmindedness find you. Quickly.


  13. And looking over the comments, once again we have a nice concern troll taking the comments completely away from the point of the post (this is allowed, this is a free speech zone). BUT!!!! We are now debating whether or not Gore’s weight bears on the high probability of anthropogenic global warming. The point of my post was that some of our congresscritters honestly believe, and are willing to have it put in testimony, that global warming either won’t happen or won’t harm us because god(s) will protect us. Sigh.


  14. Actually, I thought the point was what I asked Dash. Where you fall on the global warming argument doesn’t matter as much as whether citing a holy book and religious belief as proof one way or the other should carry any credibility.

    There are those who read their bibles and feel it’s their duty to their god to get involved in conservation efforts, which is a far cry from the folk who read their bibles and feel the right thing to do “is to have the courage to do nothing”.

    What I’m saying is it’s nice if these folk take my side, but I’m not happy about it if it’s for that reason, for that’s not a properly informed decision. I’d much rather the argument and motivation be based on facts and not ancient beliefs.


  15. Philly: Rereading your question to Dash Diprock, I actually agree. Though that is not the point I was trying to make, the question I was trying to ask, it does appear to be what I did ask. Damn. You’re good!


  16. Dash.

    Some of the best scientists (including Maths professors) in the world can be bad at arithmetic. Adding figures up isn’t particularly creative and it isn’t unusual for a very intelligent person to be not so good at arithmetic. Working out complex algorythms requires a different sort of ‘brain’ to one that can simply add figures.

    You aren’t adding to anyones knowledge by suggesting plants might grow more if the air had more CO2. Big deal, is this some sort of news??
    The problem is that trees can only grow so big, even with more CO2 and surprise, surprise, a hell of a lot of trees and vegetation gets chopped down and consumed, eventually that carbon returns to the atmosphere. So at some point you still get increases in atmospheric CO2, there is a limit to the capacity of the sinks.

    Your comments about ‘alarmists’ only listening to Al Gore or James Hansen typifies the naive or arrogant American view you have of the situation. You are so far behind in your thinking! But it doesn’t surprise me because i have no doubts that you focus on media presentation.
    BTW despite being a growing activist in environmental issues, Al Gore had zero influence on me, I only watched his movie for the first time yesterday! What has had an influence has been discussions with ignorant people like yourself that prompted me to investigate further.

    The other point is that as far as science goes there are no sides!
    It is politically motivated commentators like Discount Monckton and other economists, politicians etc. that create the ‘sides’.


  17. Dash RIPROCK III said:

    “Billy, Here is an idea for you. Trace the funding of Gore and other alarmists. Trace the grant money too. Do you think Gore has received any money from alternative energy groups. No not the great NostraGormous.”

    Paul said:

    My funding is zero.

    Dash RIPROCK III said:

    “AIT was filled with lies. The UN IPCC has abandoned the hockey stick graph that once was the centerpiece of its report. Even the National Academy of Science has very softly but clearly criticized the Mann graph. Not Gore, he just keeps on repeating that lunacy.”

    Paul said:

    Hmmm. Well in the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC includes 3 ‘hockey stick’ graphs, for CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. The graphs show the radiative forcing of the gases. They aren’t saying Gore is wrong in using the Mann graph. In fact Gore could use the IPCC graphs as well as the Mann graph to ram home the point even more. Anyone got Gores email?
    Worth suggesting it to him i think!
    Mann also revised his research and released it after the AR4 report.

    Dash RIPROCK III said:

    If AGW were a slam dunk, Gore’s film AIT would not have contained so many lies.

    Paul said:

    In the case of AIT as you call it, the lie is in the eye of the beholder.

    Dash RIPROCK III said:

    Frankly, the science is rarely over.

    Paul said:

    True, so do you think we should ignore Newton and Einstein until we have physics exactly correct?
    Get real, you are living a fantasy and your web site reflects that fantasy.

    Dash RIPROCK III said:

    Seriously Billy, try a little objective reading.

    Paul said:

    I’m afraid that isn’t how sane people reach an objective conclusion.
    There is an inevitable requirement to edit ones reading list otherwise you end up reading rubbish. A scientist can not sensibly read something written by a crank and remain credible. All opinions are not valid i’m afraid, especially in science.

    Dash RIPROCK III said:

    Once again, we’ll discuss the Hypocrisy of Gore’s lifestyle on another day.

    Paul said:

    I would prefer to talk about yours. I don’t like talking about people behind their back
    but then maybe you are used to it??


  18. Dash said:

    “As for the antactic having melting ice sheets.”

    Paul said:

    If you are going to question the science then at least get your facts right. Ice sheets lie on land, ice shelves lie on the sea and usually attached to land. Most of the arctic ice that is melting is sea ice.

    Dash said:

    Their hasa been melting around the edges, but the center is getting thicker.

    Paul said:

    Yes and pigs will fly. A British expedition is actually out there with radar, measuring the thickness.

    Dash said:

    “Overall, there is actually more ice in the antarctic now.”

    Paul said:

    You switch from the Arctic to the Antarctic??
    The threshold for ice melting is different in the two areas, this is well known by mainstream scientists. Given your keenness for accurate data, how much do you actually know about the amount of ice in the Antarctic??
    Surely given that there is less data, how can you be so confident? Aren’t you making the same mistake as those that you accuse?


  19. Paul: Thanks for stopping by. Thanks for your help with this particular individual. I’m moderately well-equipped to deal with creationists. I’m pretty confident dealing with vehement theists. Though I am aware of the arguments and evidence which show the probability of anthropogenic global warming, I’m not well versed in the denialist tactics used in by anti-AGW folks.

    Also, I’m the one who conflated ice sheet and ice shelves. Probably won’t happen again.

    So is this guy someone you’ve run across before, or is he a new whackaloon?


  20. And I just noticed this. That ice shelf off Antarctica which was attached to the continent by a narrow isthmus has broken loose. It is twice the size of Jamaica (which makes me wonder how these arbitrary measurements are concocted — think ‘hail the size of ______’. Why Jamaica? Because the warmth makes a nice contrast?). Which means, of course, that Dash will now claim that the amount of ice in and around Antarctica just increased again.


  21. Oh Please Billy, stop running away from the main points of my postings and type something worth reading. As for Paul, do you really think he objectively dealt with me??? If this is the expert that is suppose to have your back, I’d strongly suggest you find someone else. The next post will be for him.


  22. Billy,

    No i have never heard of Dash… before.
    But as usual he is one of the many American political activists that are really bad at web design.
    There is a sense of desperation in the design, don’t you think?


  23. I’m kind of fascinated by the use of the Bible and religion to deny AGW, it wasn’t part of the original denial strategy. It may represent a dramatic rethinking by the denier lobby, or it may just be the last refuge of the scoundrels.

    As for Dash, nothing really new in his posts.


  24. Dash: I am an historian. My job includes research. I am fully aware of how to research, including weighing the contrary evidence. Monckton is one of the leading minds of the AGW-denialist movement. I have read over his presentation to the US House of Representatives. Twice. Just to be sure. If that is the best that can be presented, you have my sympathy.

    His presentation includes cherry-picked data (we all know that 1998 was the warmest year on record; that does not mean that, since we have not topped that record since then, the earth is cooling. It means it was an el Nino year.). I see argument by consequences (Global warming will cost money, therefore it doesn’t exist. Alternate energy sourse (specifically bio fuels (which are not the only alternate sources)) will hurt the poor, therefore AGW is a lie.). I see a shill for a few large industries which make money on fossil fuels. I see a man who has decided to support the Heartland Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and other coal and oil producers. I see a sell out who has no evidence on his side. I see no, repeat no, convincing argument. Nothing which will change my mind regarding the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

    You, Dash, are a right-wing shill. Your website is a concoction of Rush Limbaugh talking points, quotes out of context, mined quotes and outright lies. Why you do this, I have no idea.

    You are not welcome here. I will not ban you (see my Comment Policy. I will not respond to you again. If others decide to, that is their perogative.

    Berbalang: Thanks for stopping by, and thanks for commenting. I agree that the only new bit of information in either the hearings or Dash’s drivel, is the Biblical argument. Hopefully, it is a last gasp.


  25. Billy, let’s drop the ad hominem attacks. Over a cup of coffee, a face to face discussion between us would surely not have gotten so out of hand. I’ll address the entire body of your comment soon. If you Google Dash RIPROCK III, you’ll see I’m battling quite a few climate change alarmists at once. I do believe your remarks deserve a reply (more so than many others) and a reply you shall have.

    In the meantime, here are quotes from my favorite three AGW Alarmists:

    In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. — Al Gore

    Unless we announce disaster no one will listen. — Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term
    consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. — James Hansen

    And Paul had the nerve to suggest that Lord Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchly was a crank? Well at least Gore and Houghton admit upfront that they’ll be exaggerating. I suppose there is a certain honesty in that. — Dash


  26. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Global Atheist, United Atheist Front. United Atheist Front said: Faith over Fact Every Damn Time! http://fb.me/H4N0OjQP […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: