With zero scientific data on their side. With FUD failing to fool us. With the lies being easily exposed, denialists are now resorting to death threats. How far are the denialists willing to go in their quest to destroy the planet?
virtualguy92107
Favorite Answer
Peter J sez:
"If you're going to accuse people of making death threats, it would be wise to back up your accusation, don't you think?"
Since I'm aware that it is hard to post links in questions, here's the top 3 hits from a Google search on "climate scientist threat"
Headlines:
"Australian climate scientists receive death threats" - Guardian
"Australian climate scientists face death threats, cyberbullying ..." - thinkprogress
"Climate Scientists Under Threat: Global Warming Proponents Face" - abc world news
Edit - Portland. You use the quote from Harmon Craig to support your confusion of molecular residence time with concentration persistence. I'd love to be in the room if you said that in the presence of "Charmin' Harmon". To be much more charitable than he would be, I'll point out that molecular residence time is the equivalent of the residence time of any given deposit in your bank account, concentration persistence is the change in average balance over time.
GABY
I am a skeptic! I am not a denier! I only have actual historical temperature data to support my conclusion that we do not yet really understand the AGW theory well enough to say the study is over and we have the answer. The fact is that the earth has been warming up in a long term trend for over 16,000 years, It seemed to accelerate up to 1998, then cooled down some. My state is back to just about the same as we were 20 years ago. I don't need a model or fancy theory to read the actual temperature data.
Obviously the AGW alarmists models are wrong at least for the recent period. Their models say we should be much warmer now and the sea levels should be drowning people now. Maye later? We shall see.
Ottawa Mike
I guess it's the exact opposite for environmentalists. They want to keep the planet nice and healthy but destroy all the cancerous human life in order to achieve that. Google: DDT, death and biofuels, starvation, overpopulation, Club of Rome, etc. and you should have enough scientific data to see what I'm talking about.
You probably thought of this question while driving your corn-fueled hybrid SUV.
I'm beginning to think this axiom has ring of truth to it: "Radical environmentalists have probably never had to worry about paying their grocery bills." Otherwise, why would anyone support taking the only food off of tables in the poorest regions of the world, stuff it into their cars and think they are saving the world?
Anonymous
All the way to using FACTS to expose the biggest scam in history. And by using real science not political science.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-fake-temperatures.html
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/why-giss-temperatures-are-too-high/
paoloudarbe
As long as we humans are still existing. Or as long as our planet can hold.