And last but certainly not least:
I was waiting for that.
was waiting for that
So thanks for the links, but now, as I promised - watch:
Notice both these articles are written by a guy named Marc Morano.
Morano is a well-known right-wing extremist who in the 90's used to be known as "Rush
Limbaugh's Man in Washington"
. He was also the first "reporter" to launch the swiftboat propaganda campaign against John Kerry during the
2004 election. Furthermore, Morano is actually the proprietor of the climatedepot.com website you linked to, which is well known for posting
inaccurate and spin-laced articles refuting global warming, and has received all sorts of funding from sources like ExxonMobil and Oil tycoon Richard
More info on that available here:
Notice also your first article is written on the blog of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. That's because Morano used to be his "Director of
Communications". So I don't know how familiar you are with the politics of the climate debate, but Inhofe is a NOTORIOUS shill for the Big Oil
lobby. Just check his sourcewatch page
for stuff like this:
James M. Inhofe has voted in favor of big oil companies on 100% of important oil-related bills from 2005-2007, according to Oil Change
International. These bills include Iraq war funding, climate change studies, clean energy, and emissions.
In total, Inhofe received $662,506 from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, which makes him a top recipient of oil money. In addition to oil,
Inhofe has received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress.
Inhofe is so deeply embedded in the fossil fuel lobby, he even went so far as to claim before congress that oil and gas "doesn't pollute". See:
The guy is really kind of the poster boy for paid-off, corrupt politicians - yet he and Morano have been actively outspoken critics of man made global
warming. Amazing coincidence huh?
But ok - what about the content in those links? I'm just attacking the messenger right? Well let's start with the first one:
Here we have the testimony of one Dr. William Happer, who went before the Environment and Public Works Committee (which was coincidentally chaired by
Inhofe FYI) and claimed that more CO2 in the atmosphere will be a good thing. Do we really need to even discuss why this is an absurd claim? If you
want a detailed rebuttal maybe check out this link
I'm going to just skip to the part where I show you Happer himself, whose views on this go against the vast majority of actual climate scientists, is
just another paid off shill for the Oil lobby:
Happer is on the Board of Directors for the George C. Marshall Institute. See his own profile
on their website for instance. The Marshall Institute is yet another one of these politically oriented, right wing "think tanks" that
always seem to be involved in preaching global warming skepticism. So go over to
and see where a large majority of their funding comes
The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing
funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.
So if you want to stick with this point about how scientists can't be trusted because of their political motivations - I think Happer obviously
doesn't make the cut of your own standards. But interestingly enough, go watch his testimony (video available
) and take note at the 1:50 mark, where even this
Exxon-funded shill admits raising the CO2 concentration will
cause "some" warming of the planet.
Now. The 2nd article...heheh *cracks knuckles*
First off - did you look at the names of the five physicists who authored this petition? Notice Happer is one of them? And notice the credentials of
the fifth? From your own link:
Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
As for the other names, particularly Hal Lewis and Fred Singer, and as for this petition itself - I have already written about this incident in great
detail in this post
. So I'm going to let the content of that post, and the
amount of stars it received, speak for itself.
But in case you're going to skip it - let me give you the gist:
Hal Lewis attempted to petition the entire 47,000 members of the American Physical Society to show they disagree with their own "official statement"
on man made global warming. A statement that includes strong language like this:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include
carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
Lewis wanted to show this statement by the APS, does not reflect the views of its constituents, and there's in fact "no consensus" here. He failed
miserably. So while your link is bragging
that 160 people signed this petition, understand that this is out of 47,000
I mean I already posted two proper, peer-reviewed articles both showing there is somewhere between a 97-98% consensus on man made global warming. Hal
Lewis' own research would imply it's more like 99.5%.
And meanwhile like I'm trying to
SHOW you - the small handful of skeptics who disagree with this consensus, are virtually ALL
connected to right-wing political ideologies, if not straight up bought out and paid for by fossil fuel companies and other shady sources. So if you
want more proof of that, then I suggest you do some research into the other name on that list:
Or go watch this excellent documentary, which features Singer and other hack scientists - and sums up the REAL
conspiracy behind man made