# SHOCKING NEWS: Sean Hannity is a Lying Douchebag! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 10, 2009, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594 "2009-07-10T18:55:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/121 "2009-07-11T03:21:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As almost all that you mention is not required by the environmentalists and scientists, one can only conclude that you exude stupidity. You mean the growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”? Let’s watch how the environmental movement treats THOSE heretics. You can “conclude” whatever you’d like, my scientifically illiterate friend. I feel no need to prove my intellect against the likes of you. You’re no threat. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/122 "2009-07-11T03:24:35Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > You mean the growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”? Let’s watch how the environmental movement treats THOSE heretics. What growing crowd? The guys who have absolutely no credentials in environmental science, or the guys being paid by Exxon to say that a spoonful of oil every day gives animals glossy fur? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/123 "2009-07-11T03:29:20Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > You mean the growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”? Let’s watch how the environmental movement treats THOSE heretics. > > You can “conclude” whatever you’d like, my scientifically illiterate friend. I feel no need to prove my intellect against the likes of you. You’re no threat. As what you say here demonstrates that there is no chance for you to ever make a paper on climate that will change the current consensus, I can say that I’m the one with the evidence that you are 100% harmless. You are just proposing stupid opinions that are not being treated seriously by science. ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/124 "2009-07-11T03:30:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > What growing crowd? The guys who have absolutely no credentials in environmental science, or the guys being paid by Exxon to say that a spoonful of oil every day gives animals glossy fur? Yeah them. :rolleyes: [www.climatedebatedaily.com](http://www.climatedebatedaily.com) Educate yourself before you reflexively lash out at those durn big cor-por-ashuns. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/125 "2009-07-11T03:35:16Z")
Anyone else amused by the spittle-flecked conservative quoting Freud to back up his arguments? I mean, if his politics are going to be outmoded and thoroughly disproven, why not his psychology, too? ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/126 "2009-07-11T03:44:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are just proposing stupid opinions that are not being treated seriously by science. I haven’t proposed anything yet. What are you talking about? My Freud allusions? They were just something to chew on. I’m not talking science. I also wrote down a list of alternative fuels I support. That’s the extent of my “proposals” so far on this site, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. > [@Miller](#): > > Anyone else amused by the spittle-flecked conservative quoting Freud to back up his arguments? I mean, if his politics are going to be outmoded and thoroughly disproven, why not his psychology, too? What arguments? Dude, I’m just having fun and throwing a few things out there. When I start to argue, you’ll know it. Oh, and of course every leftist worth his copy of the New Yorker knows that consevative ideas have been completely disproven, right? :rolleyes: I think the study disproving them appeared in The Nation. :rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/127 "2009-07-11T03:45:56Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > Yeah them. :rolleyes: > > [www.climatedebatedaily.com](http://www.climatedebatedaily.com) > > Educate yourself before you reflexively lash out at those durn big cor-por-ashuns. You should now that usually they are quoting scientist out of context or they are not climate scientists, but: > **[The 97% consensus on global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm)** > > \That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > The consensus position is generally defined as “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”. There are several ways you can approach the debate on scientific consensus. > Scientist roll call > > Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus: > > ``` > * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration > * Environmental Protection Agency > * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies > * American Geophysical Union > * American Institute of Physics > * National Center for Atmospheric Research > * American Meteorological Society > * The Royal Society of the UK > * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society > * American Association for the Advancement of Science > > ``` > > Academies of Science from 19 countries > > The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: > > ``` > * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) > * Royal Society of Canada > * Chinese Academy of Sciences > * Academie des Sciences (France) > * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) > * Indian National Science Academy > * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) > * Science Council of Japan > * Russian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Society (United Kingdom) > * National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) > > ``` > > Additionally, the Academies of Science from another 8 countries (as well as several countries from the first list) also signed a joint statement endorsing the IPCC consensus: > > ``` > * Australian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts > * Caribbean Academy of Sciences > * Indonesian Academy of Sciences > * Royal Irish Academy > * Academy of Sciences Malaysia > * Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand > * Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences > > ``` > > Naomi Oreskes’ survey of peer reviewed scientific literature > > However, it’s more relevant to examine peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject “global climate change” published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes’ survey… ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/128 "2009-07-11T03:51:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You should now that usually they are quoting scientist out of context or they are not climate scientists What are you talking about? [www.climatedebatedaily.com](http://www.climatedebatedaily.com) has no agenda. It’s not pro- or anti- climate change. It’s an aggregator site that pulls together news stories and science stories from all sources. Spend a few hours reading it. I do. Here’s one tidbit. [Examiner is back - Examiner.com](http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Examinercoms-exclusive-global-warming-debates-Roger-Pielke-Sr-part-1) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/129 "2009-07-11T03:53:18Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > I haven’t proposed anything yet. When you affirm that there is a “growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”” The “growing” part is the false part. History shows that it took awhile to find all the evidence that convinced the majority of scientific organizations that AGW was real. It is the skeptics who are shrinking. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/130 "2009-07-11T03:53:21Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > I haven’t proposed anything yet. What are you talking about? My Freud allusions? They were just something to chew on. I’m not talking science. I also wrote down a list of alternative fuels I support. What, precisely, is your definition of ‘alternative fuel’? ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/131 "2009-07-11T03:56:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When you affirm that there is a “growing crowd of scientists beginning to question the climate change “consensus”” > > The “growing” part is the false part. > > History shows that it took awhile to find all the evidence that convinced the majority of scientific organizations that AGW was real. It is the skeptics who are shrinking. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html) (thats the first article I could find to refute you. It took 3 seconds. Want more?) > [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > What, precisely, is your definition of ‘alternative fuel’? “A fuel that is not commonly used today”. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/132 "2009-07-11T03:58:43Z")
I take your lack of response to mean we don’t have a deal. More’s the pity. ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/133 "2009-07-11T04:00:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I take your lack of response to mean we don’t have a deal. More’s the pity. I’ll stick to what I originally proposed. I don’t feel it would be too difficult to prove whether I was right or wrong. I used plain language and small words everyone should understand. Even you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/134 "2009-07-11T04:01:43Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > What are you talking about? > > [www.climatedebatedaily.com](http://www.climatedebatedaily.com) has no agenda. It’s not pro- or anti- climate change. It’s an aggregator site that pulls together news stories and science stories from all sources. > > Spend a few hours reading it. I do. > > Here’s one tidbit. [Examiner is back - Examiner.com](http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Examinercoms-exclusive-global-warming-debates-Roger-Pielke-Sr-part-1) It was demonstrated that Pielke likes to be misleading. > **[RealClimate: More bubkes](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/)** > > RealClimate: Roger Pielke Sr. has raised very strong allegations against RealClimate in a recent blog post. Since they come from a scientific colleague, we consider it worthwhile responding directly. The statement Pielke considers “misinformation” is... > [@](#): > > Roger Pielke Sr. has raised very strong allegations against RealClimate in a recent blog post. Since they come from a scientific colleague, we consider it worthwhile responding directly. > > The statement Pielke considers “misinformation” is a single sentence from a recent posting: > > ``` > Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. > > ``` > > First of all, we are surprised that Pielke levelled such strong allegations against RealClimate, since the statement above merely summarises some key findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress, which we discussed last month. This is a peer-reviewed document authored by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80 chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at the Congress.” If Pielke disagrees with the findings of these scientists, you’d have thought he’d take it up with them rather than aiming shrill accusations at us. But in any case let us look at the three items of alleged misinformation: > > A Chinese translation can be found here. > > 1. Sea level. The Synthesis Report shows the graph below and concludes: > > sea level graph > > This graph is an update of Rahmstorf et al., Science 2007, with data through to the end of 2008. (Note the comparison is with IPCC TAR projections, but since AR4 projections are within 10% of the TAR models this makes little difference.) > > Pielke claims this is “NOT TRUE” (capitals and bold font are his), stating “sea level has actually flattened since 2006” and pointing to this graph. This graph shows a sea level trend over the full satellite period (starting 1993) of 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year and is very similar to an independent French analysis of those very same satellite data shown in the Synthesis Report (blue lines above). The best estimate of the IPCC models for the same time period is 1.9 mm/year (coloured dashed lines in the middle of the grey uncertainty range). Hence the conclusion of the Synthesis Report is entirely correct. > > The “flattening of sea level since 2006” that Pielke refers to is beside the point and deceptive for several reasons (note too that Anthony Watts has extended this even further to declare that sea level from 2006 to present is actually “flat”!). First of all, trends over such a short sub-interval of a few years vary greatly due to short-term natural variations, and one could get any result one likes by cherry-picking a suitable interval (as Pielke and Lomborg both have). The absurdity of this approach is see by picking an even more recent trend, say starting in June 2007, which gives 5.3+/-2.2 mm/yr! Secondly, this short-term trend (1.6 +/- 0.9 mm/yr) is not even robust across data sets – the French analysis shown above has a trend since the beginning of 2006 of 2.9 mm/year, very similar to the long-term trend. Third, the image Pielke links to shows the data without the inverted barometer correction – the brief marked peak in late 2005, which makes the visual trend (always a poor choice of statistical methodology) almost flat since then, disappears when this effect is accounted for. This means the 2005 peak was simply due to air pressure fluctuations and has nothing to do with climatic ocean volume changes. The trend from 2006 in the data with the inverse barometer adjustment is 2.1 +/- 0.8 mm/yr. > [@](#): > > We thus have to conclude that there are no grounds whatsoever for Pielke’s wild allegations against us and implicitly the Synthesis Report authors. The final sentence of his post ironically speaks for itself: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position. > > > > ``` > > Indeed. And, I do not believe you are careful with your sources, once again, it is you who has demonstrated to be harmless. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/135 "2009-07-11T04:04:36Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html) (thats the first article I could find to refute you. It took 3 seconds. Want more?) An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal is hardly convincing. > [@BugMeNot2](#): > > “A fuel that is not commonly used today”. Laying aside the fact that nobody else uses that definition: And you think fossil fuels aren’t commonly used today? Also, why don’t wind, solar, geothermal, etc., count? ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/136 "2009-07-11T04:06:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It was demonstrated that Pielke likes to be misleading. > > [RealClimate: More bubkes](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/) > > And, I do not believe you are careful with your sources, once again, it is you who has demonstrated to be harmless. As the problems cited are well within the bounds of ordinary scientific criticism, they don’t raise any red flags. Far worse allegations fly between scientists in the second-hand smoke, trans fat, or bovine hormone issues. If the “problems” mentioned cause you to be soured on Pielke, move on. There are hundreds of other articles on the website. Good luck, btw, in finding a scientist on either side of the debate that the other side has NO problems with. i.e. both their methodology and their conclusions are accepted without comment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/137 "2009-07-11T04:08:12Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html) (thats the first article I could find to refute you. It took 3 seconds. Want more?) [http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/inhofes\_list\_of\_prominent\_scie.php](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/inhofes_list_of_prominent_scie.php) > [@](#): > > James Inhofe, probably the single craziest person in the U.S. Senate, has a list of 700 “prominent scientists” who oppose global warming. Like the Discovery Institute’s similar list involving evolution, there are some real laughers on the list. Like this one: > > ``` > One of the listed prominent scientists is Chris Allen, who holds no college degree, believes in creationism and belongs to a Southern Baptist church. > > Allen is a weatherman at the FOX-affiliated TV station in Bowling Green, Ky. > > ``` > > Wait. It gets better. > > ``` > On pages 227-228 of the report, Inhofe identified Allen as a meteorologist and quoted from his "scientific writing"--a blog--about global warming. > > "[J]ust because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," wrote Allen. "All of this (global warming alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life." > > Inhofe doesn't quote other segments from Allen's blog, however. > > "My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture," he wrote on Feb. 7, 2007. > > "It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus ... did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do--rid the mere mention of God in any context," wrote Allen. > > "What these environmentalists are actually saying is 'we know more than God-- we're bigger than God--God is just a fantasy--science is real ... He isn't ... listen to US!' I have a huge problem with that," said Allen, a member of Hillvue Heights Church, whose pastor is a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an adjunct faculty member of Campbellsville University, a Kentucky Baptist university. > > ``` > > The list also includes a retired professor with no training in climate science who says that the earth “couldn’t be more than 10,000 years old.” And these names were listed as “prominent scientists” in an actual Senate report. Why yes, I would like more fish for the barrel! Really, you are only demonstrating how clueless you are. ---
**Author:** ![BugMeNot2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e5b9ba/32.png) [@BugMeNot2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BugMeNot2)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/138 "2009-07-11T04:10:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal is hardly convincing. I could post links to 10 other articles saying the same thing. Must I? If you have any curiosity whatsoever, you’ll check out my allegations for yourself and find me to be correct. …btw if you find any evidence that scientists are falling into line, that the ranks of skeptics are shrinking, that the debate is over, etc…please post them. I’d love to read them. I’m fairly confident you won’t. > [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Laying aside the fact that nobody else uses that definition: And you think fossil fuels aren’t commonly used today? Also, why don’t wind, solar, geothermal, etc., count? Wind, solar, geothermal, etc cannot fulfil our power needs now and certainly not in the future. If you have any articles saying they can, please post them. Of course, these articles should be written by reputable scientists and explain HOW these fuels will meet our current projected power needs. I’m fairly confident you won’t. Why don’t they “count”? Because they’re pipe dreams. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/139 "2009-07-11T04:12:12Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > As the problems cited are well within the bounds of ordinary scientific criticism, they don’t raise any red flags. Far worse allegations fly between scientists in the second-hand smoke, trans fat, or bovine hormone issues. > > If the “problems” mentioned cause you to be soured on Pielke, move on. There are hundreds of other articles on the website. > > Good luck, btw, in finding a scientist on either side of the debate that the other side has NO problems with. i.e. both their methodology and their conclusions are accepted without comment. As you ignored the research by Naomi Oreskes, you do demonstrate ignorance when you ignore that we need peer reviewed documents to support your position, otherwise… Well, you are as harmless as a dodo. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594/140 "2009-07-11T04:14:26Z")
> [@BugMeNot2](#): > > I could post links to 10 other articles saying the same thing. Must I? **Peer reviewed** articles please, or you just demonstrated that you are clueless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shocking-news-sean-hannity-is-a-lying-douchebag/502594.md?page=8)