Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mantahatch]

Did we expect any other decision http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

[Kevin Wood]

<Sound of the tin of whitewash being stacked back in the garden shed.>

Kevin

[unlucky alf]

i dont suppose Lord Oxbugh, chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables had any sort of personal interest in giving the scientists the all clear?, im sure he would put his conscience before con-science,,,,,not

[Banjax]

deeply unfortunate - but a good way of being absolutely rigorous in the future, they were slack, they tried to gerrymander the data for drama (there really was no need) hopefully it's a lesson that scientific data must always be open to intense and rigorous scrutiny.

don't manipulate it or be anything other than totally honest - let the data speak for itself 

deniers'll never be convinced -  that dwindling band of delusionists have no rigorous, independent scientific data....just very loud voices - the internet has a lot to answer for 

[Nickbat]

deeply unfortunate - but a good way of being absolutely rigorous in the future, they were slack, they tried to gerrymander the data for drama (there really was no need) hopefully it's a lesson that scientific data must always be open to intense and rigorous scrutiny.

don't manipulate it or be anything other than totally honest - let the data speak for itself 

deniers'll never be convinced -  that dwindling band of delusionists have no rigorous, independent scientific data....just very loud voices - the internet has a lot to answer for 

Pure and utter codswallop. There are many scientists who disagree with the AGW theory, their number is growing and there is much independent scientific research to support their views.

[Banjax]

deeply unfortunate - but a good way of being absolutely rigorous in the future, they were slack, they tried to gerrymander the data for drama (there really was no need) hopefully it's a lesson that scientific data must always be open to intense and rigorous scrutiny.

don't manipulate it or be anything other than totally honest - let the data speak for itself 

deniers'll never be convinced -  that dwindling band of delusionists have no rigorous, independent scientific data....just very loud voices - the internet has a lot to answer for 

Pure and utter codswallop. There are many scientists who disagree with the AGW theory, their number is growing and there is much independent scientific research to support their views.

why thank you 

erm, you couldn't send me one of your award-winning links and let us look at all this independent scientific research that agrees with you could you? i've yet to see it

[Nickbat]

deeply unfortunate - but a good way of being absolutely rigorous in the future, they were slack, they tried to gerrymander the data for drama (there really was no need) hopefully it's a lesson that scientific data must always be open to intense and rigorous scrutiny.

don't manipulate it or be anything other than totally honest - let the data speak for itself 

deniers'll never be convinced -  that dwindling band of delusionists have no rigorous, independent scientific data....just very loud voices - the internet has a lot to answer for 

Pure and utter codswallop. There are many scientists who disagree with the AGW theory, their number is growing and there is much independent scientific research to support their views.

why thank you 

erm, you couldn't send me one of your award-winning links and let us look at all this independent scientific research that agrees with you could you? i've yet to see it

OK

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj_DDU6NZLk[/media]

2 for 1, special offer:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIK2kSA89z4[/media]

[Banjax]

both fiercely bright, but Soon's research is in part funded by API (American Petroleum Institute) and the other guy believes there very little link to lung cancer from smoking! seems their research is based on who's got the biggest cheque?

Nope Nickbat, sorry  - independent scientists only please (beginning to see the problem?)

shoot, pay me enough money i'll swear the grass is blue   

[Nickbat]

both fiercely bright, but Soon's research is in part funded by API (American Petroleum Institute) and the other guy believes there very little link to lung cancer from smoking! seems their research is based on who's got the biggest cheque?

Nope Nickbat, sorry  - independent scientists only please (beginning to see the problem?)

shoot, pay me enough money i'll swear the grass is blue   

Not the old climate funding bit. Do you realise that the AGW lobby is funded more greatly than sceptical research by a factor of 100s if not 1000s?

Sorry, but your objections that these people are in some way paid off to misrepresent the science to which they have devoted their research is just crass left-wing balderdash.

If you refuse to accept that these two know what they are talking about, then more fool you. 

[Richie London]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html?hpid=moreheadlines

quote:
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, called it a "superficial investigation."

"They don't even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests," said Ebell, whose think tank accepts funding from energy interests.

[djac]

deeply unfortunate - but a good way of being absolutely rigorous in the future, they were slack, they tried to gerrymander the data for drama (there really was no need) hopefully it's a lesson that scientific data must always be open to intense and rigorous scrutiny.

don't manipulate it or be anything other than totally honest - let the data speak for itself 

deniers'll never be convinced -  that dwindling band of delusionists have no rigorous, independent scientific data....just very loud voices - the internet has a lot to answer for 

Applies equally to the pro-climate change lobby.

[Richie London]

i care as much about the climate as china 

[Banjax]

i care as much about the climate as china 

actually richie, china owns us lock stock and barrel - they pull the plug on the loans and UK plc is royally screwed