Not exact matches
One hot summer, as I said, is no more
proof of
global warming than one raging winter is
proof against it.
I contend that people should not point to the recent extreme warmth as evidence of
global warming any more than they should point to the extreme cold of February as
proof against.
An elemental question begs to be corroborated in more than one way for sheer fairness: When the main pushers of the idea that the «reposition
global warming» phrase insinuate it is
proof of an industry - led disinformation effort employing crooked skeptic climate scientists — Naomi Oreskes saying it indicates a plot to supply «alternative facts,» Gelbspan saying it is a crime
against humanity, and Al Gore implying it is a cynical oil company effort — are they truly oblivious to the necessity of corroborating whether or not that phrase and the memo subset it came from actually had widespread corrupting influence, or did they push this «evidence» with malice knowing it was worthless?
(I might say it's «
against» rather that «for»
global warming but...) he provides director James Cameron's Hollywood Reporter interview as
proof that the $ 357 million epic has an environmental agenda: «At whatever price tag, it's a PSA for
global warming — obviously Republican,» says Cameron with a laugh.