And we don't see a dishonest, intentional effort to hoodwink the populace about the danger of earthquakes, etc, as
we do with climate science.
What the hell did THEY have to
do with climate science?
Neither should
we do this with climate science.
AGW has nothing to
do with climate science.
«Even if we agreed on a particular computer simulation of the monetary damages accruing from climate change over the next few centuries, the calculation of the «social cost of carbon» would vary widely, depending on our choice of parameters that have nothing to
do with climate science,» he said.
It is said to be signed by 31,000 graduates most of whom appear to have nothing to
do with climate science.
What does the IPCC have to
do with climate science itself?
«a fourteenth - rate zoologist, so his specialization has even less to
do with climate science than that of Abraham»
What does that have to
do with climate science?
What the heck does the safety and viability of nuclear power have to
do with climate science, and what is the purpose of this blog anyway?
While that is very impressive, it has little to
do with climate science.
There are perhaps a couple of others (that have been referenced) that start with a contrived target that has nothing to
do with climate science, and therefore would not avoid the impending disaster (they might delay it for a generation or so, if we're lucky).
I really was completely uninvolved in anything to
do with climate science (apart from the odd online comment) until I started writing my blog in April.
Repeating from part 1 of this post, what does this tangent on cigarettes have to
do with climate science?