Would you ride a bicycle or a car or a plane designed and built by deniers?

Absolutely. In fact, chances are you may have flown in aircraft that I was involved with the design of. Oh wait - you warmies don't fly. It might make some carbon dioxide.

I would however be fearful of conveyance via some rickety mode of transportation designed by greenies. Twigs don't make a very strong frame.
 
Oh dear! they get sillier and sillier, they'll be dressing in brown uniforms next and coming round in the middle of the night and smashing our windows!
AGW is just a stupid knee jerk reaction to natural phenomenon, we know it and you know it, you just haven't got the nerve to admit it!
 
<<Would you ride a bicycle or a car or a plane designed and built by deniers?Base your opinion on the level of scientific knowledge displayed in this forum. You are not allowed to hold a life insurance policy for this challenge.>>

I don't think there is much chance they would be hired for such a job.

I might hire some of them to cut my grass (give James E. to use whatever geology talent he has!), but I would be afraid Ottawa Mike would break into my house and burglarize it.
 
The real question is would you trust your life to technology that has passed peer review but failed every examination by the scientific method. This is the question involved with all assumptions of AGW, while it is accepted by the politically correct peer review system it has dramatically failed every attempt to be validated by the scientific method. Why, because every examination by the scientific method reveals that it was water vapor contamination that gave the peer reviewed tests a positive. So the much more strict scientific method almost always reveals the weaknesses of the peer review system.

Any sample of any gas that is saturated to dew point capability with moisture is going to test as a greenhouse gas. It is only when you dehumidify the gas test sample that a true determination of the greenhouse capabilities can be made. Angstrom demonstrated over 100 years ago Arrhenius experiments were done incorrectly and so his results were null and void. But the defective politically correct peer review system has maintained this fallacy as if it were scientific fact for over 100 years and used it to form the basis for the entire AGW farce when any decent scientist knows it is false and unsupportable scientifically.
 
Back
Top