Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
5031 messages in 115 discussions
Latest 5/29/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
17252 messages in 763 discussions
Latest Jan-18 by OSarge (mahjong54)
Latest Jan-5 by OSarge (mahjong54)
4890 messages in 209 discussions
Latest Jan-2 by OSarge (mahjong54)
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said...
This thread is devoted to the people who ignore the debate on the environmental impact of humans and just roll up their sleeves and clean up the mess.
This article is inappropriate for the intended topic of this discussion.
No hijacking please.
Really? Seems to be more dedicated to calling me names *chuckle* - no worries, I can take it (I simply consider the source). Oh, was that mean?
Anyway, let's hear it for those smart enought to reject the hoax of AGW.
Raise your hand if you know it's a scam .. .
The debate is over for those with intelligence.
The rest just shout "Hoax!" "Witch Hunt!" "Fake Nyooooz!"
Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.
Back atcha' . . .
No place in debate for climate contrarians
“This concern distorts what news-gathering is about,” CJR says. “Journalism has always been about righting wrongs, holding the powerful to account, calling out lies.”
No, journalism is all about factually reporting the news. News sources are not supposed to be activists, whether on the right or left.
Consensus enforcement is a potent new force in climate science where sceptical views increasingly are being silenced as a danger to public good.
You want balance in the Media?
Fine! Then one climate sceptic and two of their friends can have their say, then NINETY SEVEN scientists will provide studies, data, evidence and proof.
And you will have balance.
Of course, you may be denying the far simpler conclusion that the handful of GW holdouts are stepping back and accepting the overwhelming evidence.
Oh, and also - Godwin's Law demands I call you an idiot.
It's in the rules on the start page.