Yeah, I and NASA lied about the contents of the report, Johnson left all the good stuff out of his speech, that's a real credible claim. You at least need to keep track of all the players in the discussion.

My other response to your previous post thoroughly disproves your allegations of revisionism. Scientific American is quite clearly guilty of an attempt at revisionism and you swallowed it. You now seem to be decidedly weak in your citations and strong on personal attacks which are juvenile, and which would, to any dispassionate observer, appear to be more applicable to you than to me.

Here is a link http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... that includes that one journalist you mentioned earlier, and a whole lot of his friends. I challenge you to find three articles in periodicals with comparable circulation to the NYT, Wash Post, Chicago Tribune, or even Science News between 1965 and 1975 which suggest global warming as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions into in the atmosphere. Now you can no longer say it was an isolated or fringe view from your position of smug ignorance - any such statement will now be a calculated lie. These articles all precede the notion of "nuclear winter" which was coined in 1983. You are the one who is trying to convince others that nuclear winter and these articles were mixed up when that is clearly an impossibility. So, I stand by my assessment of your veracity. Your personal attacks about my motives are both amusing and offer a somewhat disturbing view of your psyche.

You are the revisionist, and you remain a liar. Citing a secondary source is simply repeating someone else's lie, but it leaves you a liar nonetheless. Here is the speech: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/j... Scientific American says, "When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, ..." and it was not a report on climate at all - it was about pollution and it's health affects on humans. Yes, Johnson mentions carbon dioxide and not one word about its specific affect upon the environment. The particulate pollution and sulfur dioxide he mentioned were believed to cause cooling. Nowhere in the reports he was provided was there any mention of warming from carbon dioxide.

That is another lie! No matter how often you repeat them, they will remain so. Popular Science, Scientific American and many other periodicals had articles on the subject of an impending Ice age. According to NASA, the first governmental paper that suggested that warming was the likely outcome of man's pollution of the atmosphere was in 1979. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...

Climatologists were warning of an impending ice age during the Johnson administration.

Depends on whether we have a republic or a democracy.

John Basil Barnhill, ca 1914. Not Thomas Jefferson.

I don't agree that coal doesn't pollute, look at the huge impact of its mining on water pollution alone, but the US choosing not to finance and thereby control that scrubbers and other pollution controls are installed will almost certainly result in hundreds of plants being built to the standards of the early to mid 1900's. It seems to me that this policy is highly counterproductive environmentally; typical of the short-sighted politicians of the last five decades.

What you cite is a fact, but you take it very much out of context. Wind Installations have been cheaper in the US, because they have been located where the wind blows constantly, this isn't the case for Africa and much of the developing world. You cannot take that data and generalize it to other countries, or other places in the US. In some locations wind will provide even greater benefits, and in others it will not. Also, and importantly, these costs are based on having an reliable base power generating grid. Wind can be extremely expensive when it is the base supplier since storage is required to provide power when the wind isn't blowing. Wind cannot provide more than a small fraction of the total power except in a few places on earth assuming having power 24/7 is part of the equation.

Wind Power is not cheaper than coal power. Since the wind doesn't blow all the time either storage or alternative generation is required. When the costs of these are factored in, the cost is much higher. As an adjunct to an existing power generating infrastructure, wind generation may be economical, but that is NOT the case in developing countries. As to the purpose of the policy, I think it has more to do with creating an environmental talking point for the current administration.

He said, "Internet," which predates Berners-Lee's contributions by fifteen years. And we all know Al Gore invented it! Although some maintain it was Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn.

I agree that protecting franchises is not pro consumer per se, but that was their original goal and result until the 1950's, the franchise laws of most states have gone too far in protecting the franchisees because legislatures fail to understand that the 20% of the total sales taxes they take in and 7% of the retail employment in their states are paid by consumers, not by the dealers. Disassembling the existing system by giving manufacturers the power to impose shrink-wrap terms and conditions on consumers is not a move in the right direction. Boyko either lied about the situation, or he doesn't understand it himself. Tesla spent more money in Texas trying to influence lawmakers than the car dealers association. Texas lawmakers failed to enact an exemption specifically for Tesla. I do not think a bill that cuts out an exemption (even from dubious laws) for one company is a good idea, but apparently this wannabe politician does.

So what you are saying is that this Democrat (who we all know favor strong consumer protection) wants to eliminate one of the oldest consumer protection laws on the books? If he had anything intelligent to say on the subject he would have proposed how to accomplish letting the manufacturer sell directly and provide the same protection to the consumer instead of lying by stating that the politicians acted to prevent Tesla from selling directly (as 47 other states also do, so perhaps it actually has some rational basis). Too many Democrats and Republicans alike are all about picking who wins and who loses, and not on reason, equality, or constitutionality; and this guy's true colors are showing in that regard. It sounds to me like he thinks politicians are for sale and he just wants in on the gravy train.

Find (the) one that has actually been used - properly documented, it old be worth a fortune.

I worked for a retail company that applied lie detector tests to their employees. They had a written test for aptitude and general truthfulness followed by a polygraph test. The manager said I was their only employee who was not required to take the polygraph based on the written test results. I wonder how I would do today on that same test thirty years later when the world isn't so black and white in my mind.