The Independent Journal Review, The Blaze, the Wall Street Journal, Breitbart.com, and the New York Post have collectively misrepresented the Global Warming Petition Project eight times since 2008.
Senators Michael Crapo and Orrin Hatch have implied that they agree with the Global Warming Petition Project’s false, anti-consensus narrative while climate “experts” J. Scott Amstrong, Kesten C. Green, and Patrick Moore gave wrong and misleading testimony on the subject.
Representatives Conaway, Luetkemeyer, McKinley, Pearce, and Poe and Senator Inhofe have all made serious factual errors and repeated the false narrative that the Global Warming Petition Project represents an anti-climate change counter-consensus.
Four errors of fact, two innuendos, one serious distortion, and one uncredited image, any one of which should render an editorial unpublishable. Yet the Gazette’s editorial contained all of them.
If you’re MSNBC, who do you get to provide the anti-FCC net neutrality position for fairness and balance? As usual, while there’s a kerfuffle over major issues I’m down here in the […]
Scientists are as sure of industrial climate disruption as they are that smoking causes lung cancer. So why hasn’t the international community made progress toward addressing climate disruption? There are at least four reasons.
Harris’ stated goals in his commentaries are diametrically opposed to the language and arguments he uses in support of those goals. Either he’s incompetent at public relations, or he’s not actually interested in moving forward the public debate on industrial climate disruption.
Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition is calling for the end of illogical arguments in the public discussion about climate disruption. But it’s hard to take his calls serious given all the illogical arguments and errors he makes in his various commentaries. Part Two of Six.
S&R reviewed eight related commentaries written by Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition since mid-December. We found that the commentaries represent tone trolling and are packed them with distortions, errors, hypocrisy, and more. Part One of Six.
It will take more than bad science, worse logic, and fanciful claims of climate expertise to convince the Supreme Court that the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations are unconstitutional.
Progressive Culture | Scholars & Rogues 