@DanaRohrabacher , of the 3% of scientists who deny #climate change, the most prominent of that tiny club has been exposed. Oh, no :-)
@mpchc1 every time you use the bogus 97% argument, you reconfirm that evidence presented byAGW advocates needs careful scrutiny.
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher that lame answer doesn't explain paid for shill scientist, does it? -
@mpchc1 Show where opponents R wrong instead of calling names and dismissing argument without having to refute the points being made. -
@DanaRohrabacher if you take money to write what oil industry wants is that not a shill? He really hurts GOPS cred. Who else of 3% ? -
@mpchc1 U denigrate & dismiss rather than confront & disprove arguments of those who disagree. All private financed research not bogus -
@DanaRohrabacher Paid shill in tiny 3% not bogus pt. (who's denigrating now?). As for disproving, read: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/ …@mpchc1 -
@CallingLikeItIs those using 97% argument shouldn’t be surprised if people suspect them capable of falsifying weather station readings -
@DanaRohrabacher so our own funded NASA, NOAA + JMA in Japan, UK Met Office are all using 97% argument and suspect for falsifying data? Wow - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher@mpchc1 How is that "bogus?"#climatechangeisreal#ActOnClimateThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.