Because they are not about free speech or an open honest debate about ideas.
They proved that when they bashed the crap out of the Teat parties.
Global warming is their religion.
It has pretty much already been disproved but they still fight on.
If you are having an hearing about something, dont you want all sides represented?
Why would you stifle debate on an issue?
Ahhh...because you are not interested in the truth at all...just to forward your agenda.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Posted by The Game at 12:33 PM
Labels: failed liberalism, free speech, liberal hypocricy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
You're a skeptic. Should you be allowed to testify?
What are the credentials of this skeptic?
UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
It really pisses me off when people bash teat parties!!!
In all seriousness Jim, there are many with impeccable credentials that question the “status quo” when it comes to globwarm.
If you’d even bother to research something contrary to your established beliefs, you’d be surprised. Then again maybe you wouldn’t be surprised; maybe you’d continue defend the indefensible.
defend the indefensibleThat's absurd. The preponderance of evidence and scientists support Gore's position. I read a bit on your guy. He mostly quotes one other guy and says Gore is wrong without citing any "proof". If the Republicans want a witness, get somebody real.
"The preponderance of evidence and scientists support Gore's position."
Yet nobody can say there's a correlation between increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, Not climate models, and increasing global temperatures.
Please define the word evidence, because it has been easily confused with the word opinion in the past.
Terry, sorry, it's hard to respond to nonsense, except to say:
Of course somebody can say there is such a correlation, because many, many have-said it, provided data, concluded and formed consensus around it.
Evidence is evidence: data and observation. A conclusion may be opinion, but that doesn't mean it's not backed up by data and observation.
Jim, Hate to bust your bubble but there is no correlation in the real world. It's only true in IPCC climate models. I guess you've never heard of GIGO...
Knowledgeable people in the science field don't all agree.
Of course I've heard of GIGO. So what?
Knowledgeable people in the science field don't all agree.Never said that all agree. Most do, though.
Most do? Define most.
Most voters voted for Barack the timely. Does that make it true.
Give it time, then we will know if he is (timely).
Most is more than half. In the case of global warming, I believe that it's quite a bit more than that.
"Most voters voted for Barack the timely. Does that make it true. "
Well, you're going to have to clarify that one for me.
True that Barack is timely. I think he is a recycled version of failed big governmnet. Time will tell. If I am right it will also prove that recycling is a scam. (that last comment was a joke, kind of)
PS. Remember, he said we are the ones we have been waiting for, which translated means he is the one we have been waiting for tranlation he is the one translation HE is the ONE.
Most scientists may agree in AGW but as we learn more about it, more and more are disagreeing. Unfortunately the democrats want to censor any debate.
How scientific of them.
Post a Comment