Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming
That and 2,000 prominent U.S. economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, 32 National Academy of Sciences members, 11 MacArthur "genius award" winners, and three National Medal of Science recipients. They all signed a letter recently to re-affirm that facts of climate science the denialists have such trouble understanding and accepting.
So paper thin are the AGW movement’s arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority... Consider, as examples of the latter technique, how this conference has been reported in the liberal media. Both the BBC and the Huffington Post have decided to write off the expertise of the dozens of PhDs and professors speaking at this event to concentrate on the issue that really matters: it was funded by Big Oil.
You mean like you decide to write off not dozens, but ten of thousands of PhDs and professors of the scientific community who overwhelmingly accept the science of climate change? So paper thin are your arguments that you have to rely on the
Except it isn’t. Unfortunately Big Oil stopped funding the skeptical side of the argument a long time ago. The Heartland Institute is a conservative leaning think tank funded by a number of business donors, and the main funder of the conference is a local libertarian millionaire who just happens to want a bit of openness and honesty in the debate on AGW. But hey, never let the facts get in the way of a libtard story
Except that the Heartland Institute who fund the event don't disclose their funders, so it's hard for us to know, so we'd just have to take James's word for it as he's right about everything (argument from authority again) except that, except that... we do know that the Scaife Foundations gives them money and their money comes from the ownership of the Gulf Oil Corporation. Oh, yeah and the Koch Family Foundations, who get their money from the Koch company, an 'energy' company who get money from - you guessed it - oil (in this case refining and pipelines). James does not like to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The rest of the article is a blah-balsh of denial - usual stuff with James claiming the science is all dead. Except providing no proof of that what so ever. Do a search of Google Scholar, change the date papramer to 'since 2010' and what do you see?
Tones of new science, all confirming climate change, discussing it, building upon it and going forward. But then James does not like to let the facts get in the way of a good story.