Hide The Decline II - The Sequel

This is a sequel to the popular 'Hide the Decline' spoof video poking fun at Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent scientist involved in the Climategate scandal.

After Dr. Mann threatened to sue the producers of the original video, a new version of the video was produced by the No Cap and Trade Coalition.

You can read more about the controversy involving Dr. Michael Mann at NoCapAndTrade.com. Be sure to sign the petition while you are there.

If you would like to donate to the legal defense fund, visit www.M4GW.com.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[upajos]

You're assuming the climate scientists are impartial. They're not. I'd like to suggest some enlightening reading: "Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism", by Robert Zubrin. (New Atlantis Books, 2012)

[upajos]

Half the world's glaciers are advancing and ice packs around Antarctica are growing to record levels. The much-vaunted ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk to the point of almost vanishing. Maybe the alarmist news sources on which you rely failed to mention that.

[NICKLULZON]

My mind is never made up, for I know I could be wrong on any turn or any point. Do you not feel the same way yourself? Or are you certain that you know the truth and can never be disproved?

[upajos]

It's pointless spoon-feeding individuals like you with knowledge; your mind is already made up. Seek and ye shall find.

[NICKLULZON]

I call BS show your data.

[dlethe]

That is a non-sequitor.

[321Collapse]

I'm just proposing a simple idea. Call your nearest city and tell them you've decided to add some new untested chemicals to their municipal water supply. Then tell them you won't stop until they prove the chemicals are dangerous. I'm sure you'll discover that the person creating new risks is the same person who must prove those risks are acceptable. It isn't the city's job.

[dlethe]

That has nothing to do with "truth". Is a properly built nuclear reactor safe? Yes. Whether or not "this" nuclear reactor is safe doesn't mean that one can infer that all nuclear reactors are either safe or unsafe. You are using a logical fallacy

[321Collapse]

I'm talking about the regulatory process. Try building an unsafe mall in your neighborhood, you'll find the pressure is on you to prove it will stand up, not on the authorities to prove it will fall down. Try building a nuclear reactor. The burden is on you to prove that its safe, not on the authorities to prove it will definitely melt down. If you want to change the composition of sea water, then it is your burden to prove that the changes are safe.

[dlethe]

No, actually it doesn't. Read up on the scientific process. Burden of proof is on the theorists. There would be no debate if the theorists were able to prove their theories.

[CokeSupply1]

I doubt that "the scientists" have been overstating the "degree of danger", considering that global temperatures have been stable for over a decade despite the rise in carbon dioxide levels. The reason food prices are rising is because farmers recieve tax subsidies to grow biofuels instead of food. Thank heavens that carbon dioxide is plant food, eh?