Difference between revisions of "Settled science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jazzman831 (talk | contribs) m (trogdor the boldenator) |
(categorized) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY5OTM1ZThlN2NjYTUzZjVlZmVkMDU3MDZkODM0NDM= A Convenient (and Excellent) Truth] | *[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDY5OTM1ZThlN2NjYTUzZjVlZmVkMDU3MDZkODM0NDM= A Convenient (and Excellent) Truth] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Environmentalism]] | ||
Revision as of 19:38, August 1, 2007
Donald Luskin wrote:
- If you question whether global warming is happening, or whether human activity is causing it, or whether it’s worth doing anything about it, then you must be a crack-pot. You are standing athwart the “consensus of scientists.” You are disputing “settled science.” You are a “global warming denier,” the moral equivalent of an apologist for the Nazi holocaust. [1]