Tuesday, November 27, 2007

All kinds of fun stuff....

at Junkscience.com, at the demanddebate.com store


T shirts, A contest... The Great Global warming Swindle is now on DVD, not just for YouTube any longer... You can orderJunk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams.... GREAT Christmas gifts!

Steve Milloy, the editor of junkscience.com writes and publishes many articles citing scientific facts to counter the laughable IPCC reports and the so-called consensus on global warming. Like U.N. Climate Distractions and Global Warming's Senseless Consensus

Enter JunkScience.com's ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHALLENGE!

If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $125,000.00! That's right, the prize money has increased as we seek warming advocates' price threshold!

Global warming stakes raised to $125,000; Junkman asks: Why won't the Greens take our money? Ultimate Global Warming Challenge Ups Prize Money to $125,000 for Proving Humans Cause Catastrophic Climate Change - The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge announced today that it raised to $125,000 the cash award to the first person to prove in a scientific manner that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic global climate change. http://www.UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com

For the challenge and contest rules see UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com.


14 comments:

mresquan said...

What a fraud.

Rose said...

Ya gonna enter the contest, then?

mresquan said...

Hell,why not,could be fun.

Rose said...

Could be profitable, too.

Funny thing, from reading ol' Ken's piece it is apparent that the pot growers have figured out that global warming is good for plants.... crops, as it were...

Anonymous said...

Mark Konkler doesnt agree with the premise, so he just calls it a fraud.

How intellectually dishonest can you be Mark?

Please cite exactly WHY this is, in your words, a "fraud".

Copying and pasting articles dont count. Reference them by all means, but please, explain, using your vast exptertise on the issue, why this is a "fraud".

mresquan said...

Because I said so basically.It's a fraud because these "anti"global warming groups rely on the global warming phenomenon to fund their pocketbooks.They're one in the same,and each feed off of each other,at the expense of the public.

Anonymous said...

And Mark, the same exact arguement can be made for the pro-global warming groups, that they are reliant on grants and funding to promote global warming.

Taking your post and changing ONE word, you get my point - and it is a valid point. To wit:

Because I said so basically.It's a fraud because these "PRO"global warming groups rely on the global warming phenomenon to fund their pocketbooks.They're one in the same,and each feed off of each other,at the expense of the public.

"Becaue I say so" - god what a convincing argument. You should use it more often.

Rose said...

May Santa bring you some of the books in this post, Mark - plus "Unstoppable Global warming,"

How can you listen to what these guys say - their names were used to demonstrate that "all scientists agree" - yet they say, "wait just a minute..." - they tell you that no one can get grant funding unless they bow to the global warming gods, all the money and new laws and restrictions is based on the religion of Global warming because it must be our(mankind's) fault... it's too bizarre for words - how can you listen to all of this and maintain your position. They have debunked Gore's sideshow - geez, the polar bear thing alone ought to be enough for anyone.

mresquan said...

"They're one in the same,and each feed off of each other,at the expense of the public."

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to explain this statement,it seems simple to understand.I have loads of stuff to get done,so I'll explain further later on tonight.But I can assure you that I'm no global warming alarmist,despite agreeing with many theories involved with climate change.

Shane said...

The cool part is, if we just wait long enough, we get to find out who is right. If Rose is right, we made a big deal out of nothing. If Mark is right, we're in big trouble.

I'm no climate change expert, but there are enough competent scientists talking about this that I think I'd rather be safe than sorry. Besides, who is going to get hurt if we start taking big steps to address global warming? Corporate polluters, yeah, but who cares? So, who else?

Like I said, better safe than sorry.

Rose said...

Not just corporate polluters, Shane - they want to dictate that YOU have to use mercury laden twisty lightbulbs - Flex-Your-Power - while the dope growers have massive grow lights...

Stop polluting? We're all in agreement on that. We don't need "Global Warming" as a spectre to make us all guilty - we're all into recycling, understanding reduce, reuse, recycle, leave it better than you found it - things you can be proud of, you don't have to be made to go to "confession" because the planet is going through a warming cycle.

Mark Konkler is right - it's just a money making scheme for some, he just fails to see who it is.

Bad Moon Rising said...

"...the planet is going through a warming cycle." Yeah, actually the planet has gone beyond what would be considered an historic warming cycle. Why is everything a money making scheme with you people? Until Exxon/Mobil and the rest of the energy companies admit that hydrocarbons are playing a roll in climate change, you will remain skeptical. But, their own scientists are not.

Howlsatmoon said...

I have only two thoughts on this subject.

There are plenty of scam artists raking in fistfuls of dollars on BOTH sides of this issue. Since I barely passed meteorology in college, I don't completely understand how we get disparate graphing from the opposing sides...

And, isn't it "One AND the same"? Or is it a regional thing SrEsq?
Wollf

mresquan said...

"There are plenty of scam artists raking in fistfuls of dollars on BOTH sides of this issue."

I finally have time to respond and I see that howlin' and I agree on at least something.