Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
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.
61, Mr. Fusion,
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
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).
>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?