Are Climate Change Deniers Immoral?

[Liminal]

The second you bring morals into an argument, you have left science at the door. Science is about facts. Truth and morals is the realm of religion.

Climate change deniers are immoral because they know they are lying.

You've stated this repeatedly.

When are you going to point out the lies ?

This is the clean debate zone....not the "my opinion rules" zone.

Your opinion (and frankly) your childish responses to many of these posts are pretty much of no value to this "debate".

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cults tend to define infidels who reject the message of the cult as "immoral."

Since the cult of anthropogenic global warming is less scientific and less rational than Scientology - it is of little surprise that the mindless drones following this ridiculous cult would call critics "immoral."

More mindless opinions on science....we can sure use more of those.

Scientologists are not prone to reason. AGW cultists even less so.

 

[Liminal]

Cults tend to define infidels who reject the message of the cult as "immoral."

Since the cult of anthropogenic global warming is less scientific and less rational than Scientology - it is of little surprise that the mindless drones following this ridiculous cult would call critics "immoral."

More mindless opinions on science....we can sure use more of those.

Scientologists are not prone to reason. AGW cultists even less so.

Yes, well thank you for your valuable contributions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liminal, you play the same role for the AGW cult as Jeremiah does for the Christians. You both are fanatical believers who can't understand why others don't share your zealotry in your faith.

I reject your religion because I am a man of science, and your religion defies science.

 

[Liminal]

Liminal, you play the same role for the AGW cult as Jeremiah does for the Christians. You both are fanatical believers who can't understand why others don't share your zealotry in your faith.

I reject your religion because I am a man of science, and your religion defies science.

Wrong again, you are an easily manipulated man of contrived narratives.

 

[Old Rocks]

The second you bring morals into an argument, you have left science at the door. Science is about facts. Truth and morals is the realm of religion.

Climate change deniers are immoral because they know they are lying.

You've stated this repeatedly.

When are you going to point out the lies ?

This is the clean debate zone....not the "my opinion rules" zone.

Your opinion (and frankly) your childish responses to many of these posts are pretty much of no value to this "debate".

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

In other words, don't bother posting real evidence because I am too fucking lazy to look at it. That is what you are saying, Mr. Sun Devil.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liminal, you play the same role for the AGW cult as Jeremiah does for the Christians. You both are fanatical believers who can't understand why others don't share your zealotry in your faith.

I reject your religion because I am a man of science, and your religion defies science.

No, Mr. Uncensored, you are not a man of science at all. You reject science and the evidence it presents. We have the scientists presenting the physical evidence that action is needed on the subject of climate change, we have the religious leaders stating that there is a moral responsibility to take these actions, and we have people like you are Westwall, stating that the profits of the polluters are far more important.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Climate change deniers are immoral because they know they are lying.

You've stated this repeatedly.

When are you going to point out the lies ?

This is the clean debate zone....not the "my opinion rules" zone.

Your opinion (and frankly) your childish responses to many of these posts are pretty much of no value to this "debate".

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Climate change deniers are immoral because they know they are lying.

You've stated this repeatedly.

When are you going to point out the lies ?

This is the clean debate zone....not the "my opinion rules" zone.

Your opinion (and frankly) your childish responses to many of these posts are pretty much of no value to this "debate".

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

In other words, don't bother posting real evidence because I am too fucking lazy to look at it. That is what you are saying, Mr. Sun Devil.

Please don't comment on things you don't understand.

Just posting a link means nothing. I've tried to avoid that practice. Instead I post the link and extract the piece I think is relevant and then I explain why.

So please migrate over the stupid forum and let those of us looking for information continue on our quest.

 

[Liminal]

You've stated this repeatedly.

When are you going to point out the lies ?

This is the clean debate zone....not the "my opinion rules" zone.

Your opinion (and frankly) your childish responses to many of these posts are pretty much of no value to this "debate".

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.
Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest. They all evidently agree because of financial incentives. Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it. I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Liminal, you play the same role for the AGW cult as Jeremiah does for the Christians. You both are fanatical believers who can't understand why others don't share your zealotry in your faith.

I reject your religion because I am a man of science, and your religion defies science.

No, Mr. Uncensored, you are not a man of science at all. You reject science and the evidence it presents. We have the scientists presenting the physical evidence that action is needed on the subject of climate change, we have the religious leaders stating that there is a moral responsibility to take these actions, and we have people like you are Westwall, stating that the profits of the polluters are far more important.

What action would that be and how soon? When will we reach the point of no return? Have we reached it already? If and when we've reached that point, what then? Who gets to decide what we should do? What if those making these decisions are dummies? These are the things we need to know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

 

[Liminal]

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

 

[depotoo]

And this agw denier does the same. So?

I don't believe that rank-and-file deniers will be able to use their ignorance as an excuse for they harm they cause. A drunk driver may sincerely believe he's not doing harm, but we still define drunk drivers as immoral. Those low-level deniers are like drunk drivers with the truth.

Taken past a certain point, deliberate incompetence crosses the line into immorality. Deniers have been presented with all the tools and information they need to not be incompetent, but they still deliberately choose to be incompetent. Hence, they are morally culpable for the harm that derives from their incompetence.

Let's use the analogy to its completion. Let's say, instead of climate change, the deniers were denying the holocaust and you knew all along it is going on. The question isn't what the deniers will do but what YOU are doing. Would you confront the Nazis or would you confront those who denied the holocaust?

In other words, what are you doing to stop what you apparently feel I can stop. Cut back on your driving? Internet use? Paid for carbon credits? What exactly is it that you are doing other then calling people names? Which the consensus of scientist has agreed that name calling leads to global warming.

Global warming is a global issue, and requires a global response. Everyone must do their part.

So you are a collaborator who wants someone else to do something...gotja. Face it, you are doing nothing about global warming all you really want is to force your views on everyone else. It makes you feel good.

I drive less than 5,000 miles per year. I keep my thermometer low in the winter, high in the summer. I recycle. I use energy efficient lighting. I try to inform others so they can do the same or better. What are you doing to contribute? Anything?

 

[depotoo]

Are you so submissive you haven't even researched your claim of 97% of all climate scientists? Shame on you. You need to do some real research, and will discover the truth behind that bogus claim. Or, are you profiting from that lie?

Feel free to articulate some kind of rebuttal then.

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.
Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest. They all evidently agree because of financial incentives. Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it. I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

 

[Liminal]

Are you so submissive you haven't even researched your claim of 97% of all climate scientists? Shame on you. You need to do some real research, and will discover the truth behind that bogus claim. Or, are you profiting from that lie?

When you point out the lies....there will be something to rebutt.

Did you even read my post ?

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.
Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest. They all evidently agree because of financial incentives. Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it. I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Another ankle biter weighs in. Feel free to refute the figure with something besides more opinions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey Liminal ,

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Are you going to point out the lies or do I get to keep demonstrating that you've posted nothing of value since you started this stupid thread.

As I've said...I don't have a solid opinion one way or the other.

But I have no respect for people like you who have all the answers but no data to back them up.

Forget providing links alone...that means nothing.

You pull the data from the link and describe how it supports your position. Otherwise take your lazy ass somewhere else.

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

Here is yet another example of your laziness.

I provided no data. Your response is just a canned, "pulled from your arse" deflection intended to hide from the obvious fact that you really don't a command on your argument at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, Mr. Uncensored, you are not a man of science at all. You reject science and the evidence it presents. We have the scientists presenting the physical evidence that action is needed on the subject of climate change, we have the religious leaders stating that there is a moral responsibility to take these actions, and we have people like you are Westwall, stating that the profits of the polluters are far more important.

Dogma and fraud are not "evidence."

Your cult started with a conclusion and then fabricated evidence to support that conclusion. You've been caught repeatedly. The AGW cult belongs with religion, especially the Catholic church. You and the Catholics from the dark ages have a great deal in common.

 

[Liminal]

And I'm saying your little snippets of data taken in isolation with no context are completely meaningless.

I've provided no data.

You are just making stuff up.

I am awaiting your post where you point out the lies.

You said they are lying. You must be able to show the lies (or I suppose you would).

I am not calling anyone anything (except you whom I am calling a fraud because you can't produce what you need to back up your claims).

I've made no claims other than you are a fraud.

You are deflecting.

Like so many who post, you are good with the accusations but when asked to produce back up...you wander all over the map farting out smoke every step of the way.

Show the lies.

Since you are apparently a little slow to learn I'll help you out by deconstructing the denier myths a piece at a time.

I am most looking forward to your responses.

Let's start with the foundation of the denier lies: Climate change deniers maintain that 97% of climate scientists are either directly or indirectly employed by the government, and therefore all their studies and conclusions are based on a conflict of interest.

This is the foundation of the denier lies ?

I don't believe I've ever heard that claim before.

Surely you can produce something that shows this is the "foundation".

Would the "deniers" agree with you ?

They all evidently agree because of financial incentives.

I suppose you mean all these scientists agree...correct ?

Didn't Al Gore make the same claim about the deniers in his movie ? I didn't see it so I can only go from what I've heard.

What kind of financial incentives are we talking about ?

Yet not one denier can even begin to substantiate wild distortions like that, some apparently believe they can make it true by simply repeating it.

I would agree that this is quite a claim. But I am not sure that I can agree that this is the basis for their denial.

The tactic you call out is pretty common. Not just in this debate.

I'd love to see someone provide the evidence of this massive, diabolical plot to suppress the truth......with something besides more idle speculation.

Yes, well this claim makes it all the more difficult.

You'd need to produce the argument on their part (and I can assure there are other arguments that seem to be much more at the front of things) if they have one. If they don't, you obviously can't refute it.

Are you saying this is the whole basis of their claim ?

They are not basing anything on data they say is relevant ?

Never heard it before huh? Not the foundation of the denier's arguments, that everyone has heard repeated over and over in the media, seen ad nauseam on this forum. You aren't just denying, now you're obviously lying too.

I have heard the claim that it has to do with the their ties to money.

I have never heard the claim that this is the "foundation" for their lies. Mostly, it seems to be their contestation of the "science", the interpretation of data, potential other causes.....etc. So, yes, I've never heard that this is the foundation of their claims. It isn't repeated all over the media. It is stated.....but I don't recall the media supporting that claim.

When you get you story straight, you'll be much more credible.

Denying....? I never said I didn't believe in AGW....I simply said I was still up in the air on a lot of things.

So, why don't you grow up and learn how to communicate instead of bouncing between the keyboard and the popsicles your parents give you to keep you quiet.

Sounds like you'll need to make a whole huge list of things that you've never heard of before we can even begin to think about having an honest discussion.