Britain's Daily Express has gone big on the alternative view of climate change, a sure sign that the news media are getting steadily more annoyed with the hype and exaggeration and hypocrisy from global warming believers.
H/t: ClimateDepot
« UN IPCC boss has fingers in carbon trading pie | Main | The funniest environmental political debate you'll witness »
The comments to this entry are closed.
I think you should visit http://www.thepollutions.com
for more information.
Posted by: pollution | December 16, 2009 at 03:21 AM
Why, so we can read about Global Worming ROFL
Posted by: Shane Ponting | December 16, 2009 at 06:18 AM
I posted this too.
The EU Referendum blog has been producing some excellent posts and observations.
If only our media was as diverse as the british.
And did you see the 500 peer reviewed papers that also doubt AGW theory?.
Posted by: Fairfacts Media | December 16, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Yeah I had this this a.m. here. Outstanding, now if the US media would quit covering for these worms, I wouldn't have to explain the obvious to so many people.
Posted by: cbullitt | December 16, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Wow, that is woeful. Ian, I can't believe you're stooping to the level of promoting sure an obvious crock......schoolboy stuff.
Posted by: CM | December 16, 2009 at 11:20 AM
(should have been 'such' an obvious crock)
>>>If only our media was as diverse as the british.<<<
I agree, but this certainly isn't evidence for it.
Posted by: CM | December 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM
CM:
Can you still do maths - or are you a victim of tomorrows schools also?
Posted by: BammBamm | December 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM
So, why did John Key go to Copenhgen? Can our govt not make it's own decisions? Why did we bother voting National at all?
Posted by: lemon ade | December 16, 2009 at 05:21 PM
>>>Can you still do maths - or are you a victim of tomorrows schools also?<<<
I can do some maths. Can you? Can you do a rubik's cube? How about staying up for an entire Telethon?
>>>Why did we bother voting National at all?<<<
I could have told you that before you voted National.
Posted by: CM | December 16, 2009 at 08:53 PM
CM said...
Wow, that is woeful. Ian, I can't believe you're stooping to the level of promoting sure an obvious crock......schoolboy stuff.
CM, your arguments here on Ian's blog is schoolboy stuff. You're not arguing about the science but more of a piss take. You made comments for the sake of it.
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | December 16, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I started arguing only about the science but it soon became a joke and most of my questions were answered by gormless rote conspiracy theory responses that addressed nothing. So naturally I gave up on that. Now I just mock people for being stupid.
How many of these 100 reasons do you stand by Falafulu? It's comedy gold.
Posted by: CM | December 17, 2009 at 07:27 PM
That's right CM, the science soon becomes a joke..a quack CO2 theory.
Posted by: Mack | December 17, 2009 at 09:10 PM
CM, I put a question to you, and you came back with what?
None.
Same old, piss taking. Do you want to start arguing about science CM or are you just an illiterate science wannabe, assuming that you know about science but actually all you know is toilet cleaning? Am I correct?
Let's hit the science, shall we?
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | December 18, 2009 at 12:57 AM
>>>CM, I put a question to you, and you came back with what?<<<
Where was the question?
>>>. Do you want to start arguing about science CM or are you just an illiterate science wannabe, assuming that you know about science but actually all you know is toilet cleaning? Am I correct?<<<
I know enough about toilet cleaning to get by.
I know some climate science basics.
>>>Let's hit the science, shall we?<<<
Sure, let's start with this list Ian is promoting and that you obviously endorse as well.
Posted by: CM | December 18, 2009 at 03:30 PM
CM You are the one with with the quack CO2 theory mate. The quack CO2 theory belongs to you . It's up to you to prove your CO2 theory is not quack. I've got 100 reasons saying your theory is quack.
Where's your list of reasons to prove otherwise?
Posted by: Mack | December 18, 2009 at 10:15 PM
And BTW CM I also just mock people for being stupid.
Aahahahahaha.
Posted by: Mack | December 19, 2009 at 01:07 AM
>>>CM, your arguments here on Ian's blog is schoolboy stuff.<<<
That should be "are schoolboy stuff", not "is schoolboy stuff". That's schoolboy stuff.
Posted by: CM | December 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM
>>>CM You are the one with with the quack CO2 theory mate. The quack CO2 theory belongs to you.<<<
Saying something twice doesn't make it true.
>>>It's up to you to prove your CO2 theory is not quack. I've got 100 reasons saying your theory is quack.
Where's your list of reasons to prove otherwise?<<<
I've got the rebuttal to your hundred reasons already and I haven't even seen them.
Posted by: CM | December 21, 2009 at 10:10 PM
>>>And BTW CM I also just mock people for being stupid.
Aahahahahaha.<<<
Good on you. Idiot. (Kidding)
Posted by: CM | December 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM
CM, "I've got the rebuttal to your 100 reasons ALREADY AND I HAVEN"T EVEN SEEN THEM."
Well doesn't that perfectly demonstrate what a closed-minded,brainwashed idiot you are then CM. (not kidding)
Posted by: Mack | December 21, 2009 at 11:16 PM