The header explains it all.
Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post
Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn?t withstand scrutiny | FP Comment | Financial Post
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.
Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?
Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.
Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?
Bet that lawyer was paid a significant amount of money from the likes of BP and Exxon for that little peice of shit.
Won't stand up in a 'legal' court, but has every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world stating in their policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. So whom are we to believe? Lawyers, that make a living by being paid to lie, or scientists whose work must pass peer review?
They have to go the political/legal route, having lost the scientific debate.
Right...It only depends upon the tricks of academic elites, hoodwinking alumni associations, politicians, the media and gullible fools like you.
Luckily science doesn't depend on lawyers' tricks and hoodwinking jurors.
Right...It only depends upon the tricks of academic elites, hoodwinking alumni associations, politicians, the media and gullible fools like you.
Luckily science doesn't depend on lawyers' tricks and hoodwinking jurors.
Who's taking the political route?...It's the moonbats who want everyone in the whole damned world to re-arrange their lives, by force of law, to fall in line with a hoax that makes Piltdown man look like a carnival sideshow attraction, that's who.What does a lawyer know about science? Their main job is to stack juries with know nothings. Seems like they've got quite a pool here. If the science isn't settled, why are you being forced to take the legal/political route? Do you think this lawyer has the answer to what the trapped energy is doing that the deniers always conveniently forget about, as if Conservation of Energy was merely an inconvenient truth.
It's been unquestionably proven that CO2 concentrations follow increases in ambient temperatures, rather precede/cause them.If you read posts instead of just making things up as you go, you'd know I don't base my opinion on what others say. It's the logic. If mCo2 traps heat, where's it going? Got an answer. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
What does a lawyer know about science? Their main job is to stack juries with know nothings. Seems like they've got quite a pool here. If the science isn't settled, why are you being forced to take the legal/political route? Do you think this lawyer has the answer to what the trapped energy is doing that the deniers always conveniently forget about, as if Conservation of Energy was merely an inconvenient truth.