Actually, it doesn't, because this guy (a) isn't a climate scientist, (b) is 82 and not an active researcher, and (c) was already a known denier. barfo
I'm sure that's probably literally true, but it is also irrelevant, since no one mentioned a poll of scientists generally. The 97% of scientists that the original post refers to were in fact climate scientists. barfo
I'm not arguing about semantics. I'm asking Denny what his point was about the number of climate scientists. The clue here is the question "What's your point?". That suggests that I'm asking what his point is. Now, what's your point? barfo
I don't really give a crap about what any so-called climate scientist says about so-called global warming. That said, i still think it's prudent, and good earthly stewardship to be aware of, and make attempts to reduce, my so-called carbon footprint.
Right. Let's see... Yeah, you totally don't argue semantics. You should start doing the "Official PapaG semantic argument closer" of:
You're right. Do you think the interwebz would know? You almost had to use the Internet Forum Trump Card of "you can't read!"
He was a professor where? Is that a 4-year or a 2-year college? Is that the correspondence school I always see advertising its art lessons? So the old skull who was old in 1973 has gone senile and quit his science club to save on dues. He didn't quit a job, which would have cost him money. Big sacrifice compared to a real whistleblower. Did he quit to join the Flat Earth Society? Speaking of what his job is now, I bet the poor old stooping guy strongly believes in Social Security and Medicare. A real modern Republican hero. Here you go, here's real corruption for you. The City of Seattle is openly offering a bribe to a victim of the police, and a separate bribe to his lawyer, to reverse a lawsuit that has already been settled by a judge. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016222611_verdict16m.html
