The link provided by muckforbrains leads to a site that offers a link to an interview with that “well-known climate scientist” and former CEO of Halliburton Dick Cheney and another to an article in the Denver Times, which states,
“A full report that’s the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages. ”
That seems to contribute muckhead’s “not many” assertion. Or isn’t a totla of 604 scientists enough for you, muck?

I imagine that will be his defense when he goes to trial for his share of the Abramoff scandal. “I don’t think it is wrong to take money as bribes, but is is wrong to be held to account for it.”

Why are Republicans so arrogant that they believe the U.S. has any right to be guaranteed something that belongs to another country?

How many scientists were involved with writing the IPCC 2007 statement? Not many.

Why? Well, not many are in consensus…

LMAO

This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.

DOOLITTLE DID NOT LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He voiced is OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An indication of said difference would be the signifying phrase:

“I DON’T *THINK*”

jesus phucking christ.

Thanks to your presence, and your fellow trolls – that *might* be true – dum bass!

Yeah, CO2, already in the carbon cycle. As opposed to “fossilized” and *copious* quantities produced by fossil fuels. Then again, a methane producing sh*thead like yourself isn’t *prone* to science, you’re only *prone* for Jeff Gannon – right?

If you say so. Fortunately, stupidity isn’t taxed, else this entire website would be bankrupt.

Better not exhale; you’re putting CO2 in the air.

Better not type…you’re putting STUPID on the Internet.

Comment by Toliver — June 6, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

You’re right. He’s not lying. He’s just a science-denying moron spouting the talking points that have been spoon-fed to him by the oil lobby.

Honestly! How dare they keep our oil under their sand?!?

</snark>

Comment by the republic of stupidity — June 6, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

Add superstitionista, and evil to round out the list.