Kingmaker2 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 That’s how it works though isn't it. Those fully in the Global warming camp consider everyone who questions their point of view as crackpots and those who back them up as enlightened forward thinkers No they're not all crackpots, but Melanie Phillips does have some bizarre views on things. Certainly If Melanie Phillips actually said she believed in man made Global warming I certainly wouldn't want to advertise any link to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Looks like more of the general public are seeing through the current 'evidence' for AGW. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx A poll by the Science Museum asking for the Government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen. So far it would appear that the majority of folk don't agree. Copenhagen should be renamed... Hopenfakem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmaker2 Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Looks like more of the general public are seeing through the current 'evidence' for AGW. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx A poll by the Science Museum asking for the Government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen. So far it would appear that the majority of folk don't agree. Copenhagen should be renamed... Hopenfakem. And you're point being? At the end of the day most people look after No.1, so putting up taxes is not something the majority would support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIbbo Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Must watch......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIbbo Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Oh and 'Hide the decline'.......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_the_decline "Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 And you're point being? At the end of the day most people look after No.1, so putting up taxes is not something the majority would support. The reason is biased reporting like this that appeared on Channel4 a few years ago. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) Oh and 'Hide the decline'.......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_the_decline "Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers" Indeed which is why the denialists in blogosphere's frenzy over these leaks is so ironic. The quote is from this article that is worth a read: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspective_on_a_climate_scien.html Edited November 27, 2009 by Wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIbbo Posted November 27, 2009 Author Share Posted November 27, 2009 Indeed which is why the denialists in blogosphere's frenzy over these leaks is so ironic. The quote is from this article that is worth a read: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/11/perspective_on_a_climate_scien.html The point bein that the 'scientists' in question have slandard anyone who disagreed with them whilst refusing to pulish their raw temperatures data sets so independant study could be performed. the conerstone to peer review analysis, this is why their arn't as many papers disagreeing with AGW in peer review papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 And you're point being? At the end of the day most people look after No.1, so putting up taxes is not something the majority would support. My point being that the general public is far from convinced that the science is settled (probably because it isn't). Who mentioned Taxes? I didn't. The science museum didn't. [irony]AGW has nothing to do with taxes, it's all about saving the planet, isn't it? [/irony] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 (edited) The point bein that the 'scientists' in question have slandard anyone who disagreed with them whilst refusing to pulish their raw temperatures data sets so independant study could be performed. the conerstone to peer review analysis, this is why their arn't as many papers disagreeing with AGW in peer review papers. You mean the sort of Peer review process carried out so rigorously that half the board at Climate research resigned? http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm The "peer reviewed" article in question? the one on tree rings the denialists so like to refer to. And the one Mann is outraged about in the emails. It is not slander to stick to the facts. Like Fred Singer's finanacial backing from ExxonMobil, for example. http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer Edited November 27, 2009 by Wildcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now