Sport

Here you see the credulous mind at its strongest -
as each specific piece of data is brought
up and shown to be spurious - due to incompetence or
fraud, somehow "the evidence remains very strong".
Monte Python was English, and Watson reminds one of
their skit about the hapless knight who tries to keep on
fighting even as one limb after another
is cut off.

... while the evidence of the profitability of
"the green way" certainly keeps mounting.

I do think that Phil Jones's idea of the "amende
honorable" was a good one. Pity he dismissed it
so quickly.

The interviewee seems to be in his own little world . A world where there is nothing that interfears with his views, all can be explained , including fraud, malfeasance and general incompetance.

The other quote regarding universal acceptance is the basic boiler plate " the science is finshed" .

The good Dr's point about the issues being a minor part of the 6000 pages of the report is interesting. How much of that 6000 pages is actual science as opposed to boilerplate and bureaucrats patting each other on the back?

That raving buffoon makes Robert Gibbs look like an honest man.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but over at Macleans there is a poll asking "who do you think should light the Olympic Torch?"

David Suzuki is presently in the lead. (Really?)

This poll needs an infusion. Please vote so that this fruit(fly)cake can more easily dissolve into the background of history.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/09/bernier-unplugged/

Enough is enough!
Cut their Fu#kin' commie tongues out!

R. Ed Neck: But who cares?

where is the interview by cbc on this subject asking hard question's of the fruit fly overseer! Oh right! I forgot it's the cbc.

He is wrong, people have not lost confidence in the evidence or the science, people have lost confidence in the scientists. This as a tragedy for mankind that a group that use to be trusted has sold their reputation for a few pieces of silver. So much potential future good has been lost.

This global warming juggernaut will have to run its course. It's no use trying to stand directly in its path. Arguing with someone that boneheaded is a total waste of time.

The best course of action is to provide information, and real statistics. When a warmer says it's a record warm winter, just reply, it's the coldest winter om record. When they say the oceans are rising, tell them you know for a fact they are receding. They have no data. They lost it all. They only have computer models.

m- We haven't lost confidence in real scientists. Climate science is not a traditional field of science. Their ranks have swollen like a festering boil, in a very short time, much like soil scientists in the oil and gas industry. They are scientists of opportunity.

Trust real scientists.

Distrust political scientists.

Great interview! Imagine if Gore and Suzuki faced those uncomfortable, inconvenient questions. What is the name of the BBC guy?

The interview was like watching a house of cards having each card of the foundation kicked out one at a time.....

This is slightly off topic but as a whole do any of the experts know a barber? Al was a couple of breaths away from being POTUS so he has a comb but the rest? How much do you have to steal to get a haircut?

And then there is our own Geoffrey Simpson

"This might well please the Harper government, whose enthusiasm for doing anything serious about climate change is as lukewarm as the scoffers on the sidelines of the Canadian debate, the ones who throw little darts at this or that revelation of scientific overstretch while never denying the reality of global warming, thereby adopting the ultimate position of justifying doing nothing without ever actually counselling that position."

Just once I'd like to see Lord Monckton sitting in on the interview and setting the record straight for everything this IPCC flack says.

Silly question. Are there any parts of the IPCC reports that are true? It seems this would be a shorter list than what parts are false.

bluetech @11:53 AM
The reporter is Andrew Neil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html

Anyone who has used words like this professor to underscore the certainty and significance of the AGW hypothesis has abandoned science and moved into advocacy. The BEEB reporter had it right when he questioned whether Watson was too invested in the conclusion to be charged with testing the hypothesis. He even tried to defend the hysteria pimps of the WWF. Like the rest of the the UN, the IPCC should be extinguished.

Monte Python was English, and Watson reminds one of
their skit about the hapless knight who tries to keep on
fighting even as one limb after another
is cut off.
Posted by: John Lewis at February 10, 2010 10:27 AM

Black Knight: Where are you going? I'm not finished with you yet.

King Arthur's Knight: Your arms are cut off?

black Knight: That? It's just a flesh wound!

(With apologies to hard core MP fans, as the above is based on years-old recollection of the relevant scene in the film, and is almost certainly not verbatim ;)

Excellent comparison, John Lewis. These AGW Kool Aid drinkers are unaware that the limbs have effectively been lopped off the AGW monster, but it just hasn't died yet.

Colin from Mission B.C., too right.
The IPCC and it's stooges haven't a leg to stand on.
If only we could hear and end to their lies.

Regarding the Monty Python skit referred to in previous comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

"Silly question. Are there any parts of the IPCC reports that are true? It seems this would be a shorter list than what parts are false."

Exactly! I wrote a few weeks back that I'm starting to suspect that 100% of the evidence supporting the AGW theory is bunk.

Why would someone need to fabricate 10% of evidence if the other 90% is legitimate and so compelling? This would be analogous to a klepto that earns 6 figures. He doesn't need to shoplift but he's a klepto so he does it anyways.

So what is it? The science is good and the scientists are just crooks; or, is the science just bunk?

Silly question. Are there any parts of the IPCC reports that are true? It seems this would be a shorter list than what parts are false. Al_in_Ottawa

Absolutely. The warmers keep insisting that there is this mountain of evidence that proves AGW but never bother to discus specifics. Besides, after the recent '-gates', skeptics need a new list of settled science to work on.

Speaking of movies and climate science, a quote from Rob Roy (the movie), "To these men, the truth is but a lie undiscovered."

Drudge Report - Senate Global Warming Hearing Cancelled Due to Weather

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62

As has been stated elsewhere....these are not scientists but rather activists/bureaucrats....heavy emphasis on bureaucrats.
Oil for Food writ large......

RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER

The BBC is actually avoiding the issue...The World Climate is changing every nano-second...Letting that worthless piece of crap use climate change instead of man-made Global warming is disingenuous; in the least.

Dr Watson must understand that his opinion isn't worth spit...provide the source data that connects C02 to Man-made global warming or go back to your worm hole.... Maggot!

[quote]So what is it? The science is good and the scientists are just crooks; or, is the science just bunk?[/quote]

If you come up with a theory (AGW) that involved the tooth fairy & evil leprechauns controlling the climate, why would you think that the supporting science would not involve those that are delusional & ethically challenged?. It’s the only way to gather the truth about fairies & dancing elves with bells on their toes

Fiction = Fiction

speedy

""This is slightly off topic but as a whole do any of the experts know a barber? Al was a couple of breaths away from being POTUS so he has a comb but the rest? How much do you have to steal to get a haircut?"""

easy there me lad, some are just to barbers:-))))

Oh shit! I rushed over to the MacLeans website to vote to set Koki Suzuki on fire. Guess I miss-read the post on what we were voting on.

Horny Toad

This guy goes to sleep dreaming of faeries that he thinks are real.
The desperation of a con caught in the sting.

Something about that MacLean's poll strikes me as not being right. There is a long list of worthies (including Gretzky, and Terry Fox' mom, Nancy Raine Greene etc. etc.) and out of nowhere but at the top of the list Suzuki. The vote divides among all the worthies but for those who are deluded, demented or otherwise afflicted, Suzuki is the only odd one on the list. If there had been only 4 choices including Suzuki, would he still have placed first? It just bugs me. It feels rigged but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Phillip G. Shaw at 6:53 mentions the BBC.
Talk about the MSM being biased! How about 8 Billion reasons to plug their ears and repeat their mantra...
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

I do think that Phil Jones's idea of the "amende
honorable" was a good one. Pity he dismissed it
so quickly.......................................

True..

That is better than hooking a hose to his car exhaust and committing suicide with Co2 Carbon credits. .............

The idiot in this Vid telling us the earth might run out of water should come to Washington DC our 4 feet of snow melt run off will flood the Potomac

Mar000ns!

--I read that no errors surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports which saids the physics of a arming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and is incontrovertible.

--So far 4 mistakes have been discovered in the second report which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world. The topic of the second report is a soft science and criticism of the way it was put together is valid. Same goes for the 3rd and 4th reports.

--All that being said, it does not change the validity of the first report. It still stands true and there is a serious problem brewing for us homo-sapiens.

Excuse the typo, should be 'warming atmosphere', not 'arming atmosphere'

And the reports I refer to are of course, the IPC reports on AGW.