www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html just had to make it a "gate" thing after all the crapola from the climate denialists after the big "climate gate"thingy. Anyhow, who would have thought that cashed up right wing sociopaths would seek to muddy the water by paying scientists,bloggers,and opinion writers to try to sway the course of science. And when you look at the vid of Monckton trying to harness the ruling classes and then the attempts by Rinehart to buy Fairfax, the rise of the right wing "shock jocks",.....well it just shows you what this government is up against
www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html
The dots on the end break the link.
How come every time you get the "something reasonable and good sounding ..." institute it's a bunch of raving, ultra-right wing loonies? It's even worse that these clowns are funded by major corporations.
"i think the pro climate change puppet on the left is correct"
"well I think the puppet debunking climate change on the right is correct"
......
"Hang on a minute....
They're both controlled by the same strings"
(With thanks to Bill Hicks)
Being a Labor voter means you don't have to understand issues in any depth. It gives someone the opportunity to appear informed and ahead of the curve, to be better than the "sheeple". But in reality it shows a failure to understand semi complex issues. Take this issue for example, it's not that complex, you can say, "I believe in the processes of science" or " this is total rot because of ..... but to say BOTH sides are being "controlled" is just plain dumb. It seems to me to be a way of sidestepping a difficult question and handing that decision onto another invented thing. Very similar to the way some religious people don't have to worry about complex issues because God is their moral, spiritual,and all round hard question back stop. Labor voters have that same sort of smugness that God botherers have. Because they know that when faced with decisions they can always fall back on their imaginary constructs.
Fixed that for you
Isn't the point that both sides are as bad as each other? How do we know that pro-climate change scientists aren't being/ haven't been 'encouraged' at some point to support the theory of global warming? It's all spin... A perfect example is going from global warming to climate change as terminology. We hardly ever get the cold hard facts so how can anyone claim that one side or the other is propagating the truth?
