In an article by David K. (Is his last name potassium?)
Headed: More lies by Climate Denialists.
Starting from the title, what a stupid statement! Is there anyone who denies that there is climate. Good Heavens, K, wake up and smell the roses.
I think he means Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Denialists. I proudly stick my hand up.
Then he says "The truth: There is a scientific consensus based on decades of research. And every major scientific organization in the world agrees." Another stupid statement. True scientists push and probe at any hypothesis. AGW is an unproven hypothesis. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Hey K! Have a look at petitionproject.org and count the more than 31,000 US Scientists that don't agree with your "consensus." Myth busted. Truth one is a lie!
Shot down, clown.
The truth: There really are only a handful of scientists that are most often cited, and they are all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny anything that might result in regulations they don't like.
31000 is just a few more than a handful. The handful is on the AGW alarmist side and they are all on the public purse. Oh Dear, K. Another blown away!
I couldn't be bothered to go beyond that. Surely you would start with your strongest points first and they have all been blown out of the water.
Don't worry. old deKay. All will out soon! The US chamber of commerce is out to expose the sham scam:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.
The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.
In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."
