Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

AGW denier Marc Morano of Climate Depot and CFACT suggests, "global warming skeptics" are defined by fantasies about lynching climate scientists

Besides Morano did not get the facts right with respect to my employment, since I am not a NASA scientist (I am a Columbia University scientist at GISS), why am I saying this? Because Morano asserts on the Climate Depot website, "NASA scientist Jan Perlwitz publicly warns global warming skeptics, 'I shoot you dead'".


The actual fact is that I strongly responded on my own behalf to a lynch fantasy against climate scientists (which came combined with a delusional analogy to Nazi-Germany), articulated by a specific anonymous individual with the alias Allencic who said,



















Morano's claim my response to Allencic's lynch fantasy was addressed at "global warming skeptics" is a lie. Thus, when Morano interprets my response to this as a "warning" against "global warming skeptics" in general, he suggests this kind of lynch fantasies against climate scientists was a defining feature of "global warming skeptics". I did not say, and I do not think it was.

Also, by displaying my statement as something condemnable, even though it was a conditional statement for the case the addressed individual really tried to tar, feather and torch me, i.e., murder me, because I was a climate scientist, Morano also suggests that I did not have any right to self-defense in such a situation. Thus, AGW denier Marc Morano, who is paid by the conservative think thank  Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) for spreading his propaganda and lies on his website, implicitly suggests that climate scientists did not have a right to self-defense, when someone tried to murder them.

Marc Morano is an appalling example of lack of ethics and honesty on the side of the AGW deniers.


4 comments:

  1. You are a pathetic embarassment & a joke to those members of the scientific community who don't treat the scientific method as an inconvenient annoyance.


    Climate change that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, anonymous Fred. What about you are pointing out in detail, in which ones of my scientific publications I supposedly violated the scientific method.


    Can you do that?


    No?


    I already thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you ask the question, and then presume to answer it yourself.
    What's the point? What will your kind do when the planet doesn't warm any further & cools?....manipulate more data?...concoct further unvalidated 'models'?...hurl childish insults at those scientists whos views differ from 'The Cause'? .....is the 'debate' over Jan?...the 'science' 'settled'?...apparently in climate 'science' the scientitifc method is a democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Your kind"? Do you believe I am an extraterrestrial? Perhaps I am!

    Your second comment doesn't contain anything with substance, either. Like the first one. Just the usual AGW-denier smear, ranting, assertions without anything that backs them up.

    ReplyDelete