Al Gore highlights by aspenjournalism




  1. Mr. Fusion says:

    It seems the deniers can only resort to calling Al Gore names and citing Roy Spencer. Spencer has no credibility in the scientific community. He has lots of friends that hang on his false claims though.

    But then most people that also promote “intelligent design” as THE answer are trusted by Alphie and friends.

    : “I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”
    Dr. Roy Spencer, Penfold, Michael (2007). The Evolution Crisis

    How desperate are the deniers to follow this fraud.

  2. Guyver says:

    61, Mr. Fusion,

    Your link is to a fully rebutted scientist that keeps publishing the same data. Since no reputable publisher will publish him anymore, so he is forced to pay to publish in an on-line journal.

    Fully rebutted by your blog that you cite? :) Well here’s one where a climate scientist is slamming RealClimate.org’s misinformation: http://tinyurl.com/kuxmfn

    Too funny that the deniers have to resort to such garbage ass their evidence.

    Liberals tend to label anyone who questions their assumption-based models as “deniers” when those so-called deniers ask for the empirical evidence (or question whether or not the alarmists are applying the scientific method). When alarmism fails, they default to ad-hominem because they can’t use science to back their claims (except when they try to do an appeal to authority or claim assumption-based models are good enough for science).

    It seems the alarmists want to cherry-pick when science should and shouldn’t apply.

    Regardless, the topic is so polarizing that we can make a game of finding blogs to refute one’s source over the other. At the end of the day, what does the empirical evidence show? Does it conflict with assumption-based models? Can ANY predictions be made by alarmists that can be measurable and accountable within our lifetime?

    Most liberals (aka alarmists) don’t care about reality. They just want to shove green laws down people’s throats regardless of the empirical evidence or the practical consequences of being “green” (because deep down inside making green laws to coerce the masses makes them feel good).

  3. MikeN says:

    >Since no reputable publisher will publish him anymore, so he is forced to pay to publish

    You do know that you have to pay to be published in places like Nature and Science as well?

  4. Ah_Yea says:

    The last word on global warming. The science is in!!

    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
    http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

    Climate Forecasting Models Aren’t Pretty, And They Aren’t Smart
    http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/08/09/climate-forecasting-models-arent-pretty-and-they-arent-smart/

    And here is the answer.
    Advanced Reactor Gets Closer to Reality
    https://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38148/?p1=A2

    Not that science or reason will persuade the brainless liberals.

    Some of them (see above) can’t even use links!