Comments on: Climate of hatred: Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism

By: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, June 19th 2009 « The Daily Bayonet

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, June 19th 2009 « The Daily Bayonet — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 13:42:12 +0000

[...] a used-rug salesman refused service to a respected scientist because he is a climate skeptic. Welcome to the left’s new [...]

By: wake487

wake487 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:07:14 +0000

NO Shirt, NO shoes, no…..

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2009/06/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-pc-ism-no-service.html

By: dispatches from TJICistan » Blog Archive » artists are “climatologically correct”

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:09:56 +0000

[...] http://greenhellblog.com/2009/06/16/clim… [...]

By: The Infidel Diaries » Climate of hatred: Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:14:44 +0000

[...] source: Green Hell Blog [...]

By: phalanx76

phalanx76 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:26:35 +0000

Hi Kong, The main argument here is if man can affect climate and through an extreme example we have established that he could. In this particular example you have even conceded that the extinction of man may result. Once we have established that man can change climate, even if it is for a short time, we have to being to consider what other affects our actions have on the climate. I would assume that uncontrolled deforestation would have an affect on climate. Bottomline is that to ignore the effect that humanity has on the planet is to be as blind as those whom over-exaggerate our affect.

By: Today’s Tibits

Today’s Tibits — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:05:44 +0000

[...] Climate of hatred: Prominent scientist refused service due to skepticism Lefties are such caring and professional types aren’t they! [...]

By: thecaster

thecaster — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:47:17 +0000

My condolences to Dr. Lindzen and his wife. Good that they were not hurt.

By: kong99

kong99 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:55:34 +0000

I’ll grant you the nuclear effect on the environment. However, the effect would only be temporary and wouldn’t do anything to destroy the planet. After time, the earth would resume it’s normal environmental norms and continue possibly without man. In any case, regular activity by man and industry do not have a significant influence on climate change. We could reduce business related CO2 emissions to zero and it’s not going to change the pattern of the earth’s temperature cycles. If the earth was headed for an ice age, it would still be heading for an ice age if you were to remove man altogether. Same for the opposite also applies, too.

By: rth0

rth0 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:56:54 +0000

Comforting that this physicist is prominent. Who are these promoters of the prominent? I am not sure I can trust the promoters of the prominent, so can I trust the prominent from such hearsay? I suspect no. Prominences are flares that come and go, no? Urban VIII was, I suppose, more prominent than Galileo, since he and the Index had the Duty to protect the many from False Doctrines. It took some 400 years to have his books removed from the Index. Curious.

By: sukiho

sukiho — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:38:38 +0000

not at all, your post was not about his findings, he should publish them by all means, but a press release about someone refusing to appraise a rug, which is what your post is about, is pure showmanship

By: phalanx76

phalanx76 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:11:51 +0000

Benjamin, I 100% agree with you right up until the end. While you may consider utilizing reduce/reuse/recycle bags as nonsense in the Global Warming argument arena in the very least it most certainly is admirable to attempt to preserve the world’s forests. Or do you not support protecting our natural resources and believe that we should just have it?

By: phalanx76

phalanx76 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:46:54 +0000

First and foremost the concept that humanity cannot have any “huge” effect on the world’s climate is grossly incorrect. Humanity can influence the world’s climate in a number of ways i.e. Nuclear War would change worldwide climate. Humanity clearly does possess the power to control and change the world drastically. This of course neither proves or disproves the existence of Global Warming but does disprove the concept put forth that humanity cannot affect the world in such a “huge” way. As for the art appraiser I would have to agree that this is getting more press and discussion than it deserves. Prof. Lindzen should find another art appraiser and chalk this up to a fluke.

By: ricktipton

ricktipton — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:13:40 +0000

Yeh the Human race is proving to be non-sustainable in many ways!

By: ricktipton

ricktipton — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:11:47 +0000

You imply because he published his findings he must be a showman! Not so it’s part of his proffession to publish the facts that he comes upon!

By: sukiho

sukiho — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:47:55 +0000

what is this about? where did I claim scientists dont publish their findings?

By: sukiho

sukiho — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:46:23 +0000

a judge is obliged to state if he has an interest in a case, I didnt call him a showman because of what you call his factual findings, I called him a showman because this has nothing to do with science, or anything, and neither does your reporting it, I doubt he has a case for a lawsuit altho Im not familiar with US law, actually you are quite pathetic with you f– offs and personal attacks, at least Lindzen isnt a moron like you

By: ricktipton

ricktipton — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:49:19 +0000

What an idiot you are scientist publish thier findings constantly! How else are they to inform the ignorant masses or in your case asses(as you seemingly refuse to use you brain for logical consideration of the facts)!

By: kong99

kong99 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:38:43 +0000

Gore’s net worth after leaving political office was $2 million. Now it’s about $100 million, thanks to his fantasy film and carbon credits company. Nah, Gore’s allegiance isn’t with his pocketbook, it’s with the truth and saving the world. Not hardly. He has all of his money tied up in the “green” lie, so he’s going to force it up everyone’s ass.

By: kong99

kong99 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:31:22 +0000

@Tatiana… you accuse amylpav22 of being arrogant. He is saying that man is too insignificant to change nature in such a huge way. You, on the other hand, are dismissing his statement just because he believes in God. I’m agnostic, but I don’t grade someone’s intelligence on their belief or disbelief in God. I take that you are full tilt towards man causing global warming. You believe that man is so powerful that we can alter the much, much larger forces of nature. It’s you that’s being arrogant.

By: ricktipton

ricktipton — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:53:26 +0000

sukiho; If he’s a showman how come he hasn’t started a very public lawsuit against this ass of a dubious art appraiser?
These people put themselves out there as experts on art and the fact that he contracts as an appraiser implys he is objective. Like a Judge he’s bound by his proffession to be impartial.
The scientist has to deal with fact about how we as human beings have screwed up the planets regulator. And when he report the factual findings of the research people like you call him a showman of a fraud because your afraid to face the hard cold facts that hit you in the face when you really look around you! F*** O*F!