Some of it is junk. Eg, Der Mann's. And Jones's. And, at the end of the day, after zillions of dollars spent on that stuff, wtf do they really prove? Methinks: zip, nada.
Sullivan’s post merits reading as the quintessential Sullivan, leaping from nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check.
11 comments:
It's not junk science, but it's speculative science.
Hmmm... It's not? Kraut is getting to be a softie.
Lindzen is not junk. Maybe Kraut doesn't want to paint with the broad brush. I appreciated that, actually.
Bloodbath for fruity thinker.
Some of it is junk. Eg, Der Mann's. And Jones's. And, at the end of the day, after zillions of dollars spent on that stuff, wtf do they really prove? Methinks: zip, nada.
Sullivan’s post merits reading as the quintessential Sullivan, leaping from nonexistent fact to blanket ad hominem without even a pause for a reality check.
Powww!!
Why would anyone read that junk? It's retarded.
And, btw, wtf is happening with my posts? They keep disappearing, not counting, etc. I smell a big fat commie rat.
REad the Krautman. Make you happy.
...not this.
Duhhh.
McClellan?
Post a Comment