Quote Originally Posted by Jesus Jones View Post
NaturalNews
Learn more: Al Gore backlash: Why environmentalists are celebrating rising CO2 levels
And about the author; Mike Adams, of the piece (of crap) you sent us to,..

Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther and endorses conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He has endorsed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, a movie about Stanislaw Burzynski. Steven Novella characterises Adams as "a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank"

and

Among its most outspoken critics are "Orac" of ScienceBlogs, who has called it "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," as well as Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags, and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes. Steven Novella has called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable. If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the “natural” products he hawks on his site.". Other critics of Adams' website include astronomer and blogger Phil Plait, PZ Myers, and Brian Dunning, who listed it as #1 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list. Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch Robert T. Carroll at The Skeptic's Dictionary has said, "Natural News is not a very good source for information. If you don't trust me on this, go to Respectful Insolence or any of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs and do a search for "Natural News" or "Mike Adams" (who is NaturalNews). Hundreds of entries will be found and not one of them will have a good word to say about Mike Adams as a source."

maybe we can ask Mr. (no Phd., no Dr., nada) Adams

Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
Nice read for the deniers/loonies out there/here. You’ll never be able to reach some people (nor should you continue to try),......

10% believe US agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and 15% believe that the evidence for a link between second-hand cigarette smoke and ill-health has been invented by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers.
5% believe exhaust seen in the sky behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed by the government for sinister reasons
15% think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry “invent” new diseases to make money
25 percent of British people "don't believe the Apollo 11 moon landing."/six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings
21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence
4% say they believe “lizard people” control our societies by gaining political power
5% believe exhaust seen in the sky behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed by the government for sinister reasons
5% believe that Paul McCartney actually died in 1966
How can scientists respond?

By definition, conspiracy theories are largely impervious to increasing amounts of evidence. Indeed, in the case of climate change, we have arguably reached the point where it is the strength of the overwhelming scientific evidence that is compelling some people to accept a conspiracy theory in preference to a price on carbon or other government regulations.

Additional evidence will not find any traction among those who think of science as a conspiracy. Instead, communicators should focus on the vast majority of people who know that when medical scientists pointed to the health risks of tobacco, they did not conspire against smokers but sought to keep them alive. And that vast majority of people also understand that, when climate scientists say that the globe is warming from greenhouse gas emissions, they are not attempting to create a World Government but are alerting us to a risk to humanity’s most basic life support system.

No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying

[/QUOTE]