There is PLENTY of criticism of his content on the web. I doubt you're interested in hearing realities, though.
This isn't a legitimate defense. If his/her content is wrong YOU should be able to show that without attacking him/her personally.
There is also PLENTY of criticism of enviro "the sky is falling" alarmist. How do we determine who is correct? Should we listen both sides, are just one side's argument and the explanation that the other side is full of shit?
Try googling The Climate Depot and getting a book called Inconvenient Facts by Gregory Wrightstone. That would be a good start to get opposing scientific views.
Outnumbered by people in the actual know (i.e. climate scientists) by about 97-3. Follow the people who know what they're talking about, whose scientific work is peer-reviewed, and not those who are in the book-selling business of peddling bullshit to the gullible.
Gregory Wrightstone is one of those mercenary people who decided he could make good bucks off selling bullshit to people like Kikicaca. He has been widely discredited. Laughed at, even, by the scientific community.
Oh I forget never listen to Rex he can't answer one simple question about our climate neither can his "peer reviewed actual climate scientist" who are wacko environmentalist or have their hand out for grant money. DEMOCRAT WORD MEANING #6 Peer reviewed= You don't agree with us so your science is false you need to be silenced and your career destroyed.
DEMOCRAT WORD MEANING #7 and #8 7. Discredited= The use of the MSM and most of academia to cover up opposing science 8. Scientific Community (heavy on the com as in communist)= A commune of wacko eviromentalist anti capitalist questionable scientists banding together to suppress dissent.
Um .... no, that is false. The bogus 97% meme regards abstracts of papers, not scientists. The author of the 97% paper was a journalists, not a scientists.
