“Well Professor Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we called such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it.” [Video at Huffington Post]
chuckcurrie; Your comment is right on target. The best way to handle these clowns is to move the selecter lever to the O-F-F position.
We care able the planet. We also care about granny’s social security check and my taxes being used to buy snake oil from sleazy charletans.
Spuds (potatoes) are best when well cooked. Half baked spuds demonstrate the error of having been too quick to come to the decision that they are in fact cooked – All sane – clear thinking – rational and logical thinkers like to be in control of all the facts before jumping to an erroneous conclusion – Despite the pain of ‘Sandy’ there is also a lot of egg floating around from those that promised (again) that this was going to be the worst storm in history – its idiots like this that make people blase and consequently when a real problem arises they get caught.
“Instead of feeding name calling morons like Chris Matthews, [Professor Oppenheimer] would serve his ends better (in my opinion, at least) by encouraging the fullest measure of discussion and response to those challenges offered by knowledgeable scientists….”
That begs a question. What, precisely, are Professor Oppenheimer’s objectives in supporting the AGW fraud?
How does he perceive his benefit in this contest between sound scientific kepticism and flagrant quackery, and why is he pushing the charlatans’ preposterous bogosity?
“encouraging the fullest measure of discussion and response” = Delay action = Move the deck chairs one more time.
Professor Oppenheimer is a well known proponent of the anthropogenic cause of global warming. He has strong credentials in the study of interstellar chemistry and physics and some significant work in atmospheric sciences. However, for the past couple of decades he has been one of the prime movers behind the AGW theory and has pushed a mainly one sided political policy agenda on the subject. He is dismissive of serious questions raised about the models and assumptions that underlie AGW , as are most of the establishment scientific community. Instead of feeding name calling morons like Chris Matthews, he would serve his ends better (in my opinion, at least) by encouraging the fullest measure of discussion and response to those challenges offered by knowledgeable scientists , even those with lesser credentials than he.
If people quit posting what he says, nobody would know what he says.
As always, let’s define a playing field. Most of us so-called “deniers” don’t deny that the climate is changing. Rather, we admit that the only constant in climate is THAT it changes.
We don’t even deny that judicious selection of beginning and ending points on a temperature graph will indeed show that there has been a period of warming over a few decades. THERE WAS.
What we deny is that any cherry-picked warming trend was indeed of anthropogenic cause, and that a reasonable correlation exists between CO2 release and temperature.
We will continue to take the moral and scientific high road by claiming the actual (even cherry-picked) data as our evidence. As such, we prefer to be called AGW skeptics rather than climate deniers.
His name is misspelled, it’s Chris Mattoid.