How many idiots fell for it and never saw a gram of gold?
Idiots like these make me wish we had stricter laws that prohibit speech and expression. “All the rights but no obligations”?
How far do you think that will go? Who will actually give a shit?
The answer is nobody (who matters), because in this country, the only thought crime is being racist (and denying the Holocaust), all other beliefs and even criminal actions will not stop you from speaking and getting elected.
You can cheat on your wife, pay a hooker, do blow, rape your intern and order somebody to be executed, and politically you did nothing wrong. But if you dare piss off the PC lobby, they’ll destroy you. This is why deniers are so quick to make enemies with Jews, they know they’ll only win some but lose most, it’s better to strike first, do it like Bush.
As I’m writing this, you should be aware that none of these online petitions got anything done either, even when Justin Bieber was arrested for DUI.
International Journal of Modern Physics?
Here’s the list of “references” to that article (I’m showing only the first 2)
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, eds. R. K. Pachauri and A. Reisinger, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland .
Andrew, , http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html .
Do you see something wrong?
One is a citation of a UN IPCC report, the other is an internet post. The internet post doesn’t even have the author’s full name. I should change my last name to Aaron or Abbey just so I can get my article on top of a list when cited.
But what is this “author” writing? Certainly nothing scientific about climate change, just a list of more articles that supposedly support a position based on the author’s subjective opinion.
Not all journals are equal, and certainly not all articles, needless to say, citations does not mean they agree with you, but even if they did, it’s not a scientific article with any first hand or independent study on climate.
So what DOES make you scientifically credible? It’s for scientists to know and deniers to find out. Just kidding, it’s rather simple, do first hand research, show your data, show your work, be open to criticism, the opposite of blogging anonymously. When Andrew shows his face, speaks publicly like Ben Davidson (who admits he’s pro-regulation), or testifies before Congress like real human beings do, maybe you can take him seriously. But don’t worry, he’s said he’ll take you seriously as long as you can convince him you lied ” I take liars very seriously “
1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy:
1. to disturb or annoy by malevolent interference
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
-To annoy intentionally
-To disturb or tamper with.
definition 1: to annoy, disturb, or attack. (wordsmith/wordsmyth.net the denier’s trusted source)
So there, I found dictionaries online that define the word without any reference to sexual acts. Therefore, if EVEN ONE child can say he/she is annoyed by you, you are a “molester” using a blogger’s logic. If calling somebody a “fraudulent” or “trickery” can be compliments, surely calling somebody a molester can be too. Therefore, you have no defamation case, because you said so, and I said so. You mad bro?
Internationally recognized by over 300 independent sources including Forbes, the International Journal of Modern Physics and the United States Senate.
What a normal person reading this would be led to believe is, that a news organization such as Forbes or the legislative body US Senate made some official statement or at least most people in the organization signed off on its credibility. Nothing close to that, in fact, it’s hypocritical that Andrew would use this when the argument is against his position:
Policy statements release by a handful of council members or signed by just the president of a scientific organization can speak for no one other than these few scientists. It is disingenuous to imply that the membership bodies (hundreds of thousands of members) of these scientific organizations (which never voted to approve such statements) can be used in support of these statements. Many members join scientific organizations for free access to organizational resources or discounts on journals and meetings. They may have little to no interest in the organization’s policy positions. Without a comprehensive survey or poll of the membership’s position in relation to the organization’s policy statements no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
By this logic, the fact that James Taylor was allowed to blog or comment of a Forbes website does not mean it’s endorsed or representative of Forbes (although it shouldn’t surprise you even if it did, after all, Forbes is not a scientific organization or known to speak directly to scientists). The fact Marc Morano was able to post this shit
UN Data shows ‘Warming has Stopped!’ – Climate Fears Called ‘Hogwash’ – ‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged
Wednesday December 3, 2008
Posted By Marc Morano – 4:34 PM – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
on the Environment & Public Works Republican Website, does not even mean a Senator has (but again, sure, some Senators have, such as Inhofe, but again, they’re POLITICIANS, NOT SCIENTISTS).
This is how Populartechnology gathers the false impression of support and credibility, he tells you it’s recognized by “sources” but what SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS?