Report this

00

Report this

00

‘Roger Harrabin doesn’t trust Bill Gates himself because he hasn’t published the Microsoft computer code or the microprocessor production techniques which makes his Ipod work’
Errrrr…Just had a look at my IPod for a Microsoft logo and cannot find it!

More? ‘Roger Harrabin says he doesn’t trust Coca Cola, mobile phones or Ipods because the makers have refused to publish how they are made’.

and now for the big ones!

Roger Harrabin refuses to fly in an Airbus 360 because the software running the take-off process hasn’t been published.

Roger Harrabin doesn’t support the Army in Afghanistan because they haven’t published the names of Intelligence sources.

My thanks to Mr Corbyn (I wonder if he has yet had a reply?) at

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4905

Do not trust the BBC till they clear out these Eco warriors!

Report this

00

Report this

00

Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers reported on what the IPCC thought about its report in 2007:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820

With a scientific mind, it’s not pretty – mistakes and false assumptions all known at the time, corrupted by the political editing process.

Report this

00

Report this

00

Report this

00

It convinces me more than ever that our fight has to be political, not just science. The message must get out by some means to the average citizen living on side-street, in any-town, in any-country. If we can do that then voting habits will change and the problem will be corrected. I’m encouraged by media attention in Australia. But I’m not seeing anything here in the states. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) announcement may have been covered somewhere but if so, I missed it.

Report this

00

The AGW crowd have put together a convincing argument but the way in which old data was used and the less than foolproof way in which current data is collected and treated would be enough to cast severe doubt on the veracity of any conclusions.

If nothing else one would hope that governments would spend less on super computers and much much more on providing appropriate recording stations and collecting real data. There is no way we should be spending on a theory which at present lacks the evidence to be convincing. What makes it worse is that most new research makes the theory even more specious.

Bush Bunny, Suing Al Gore would take longer than it will take for the seas to rise 6 metres. Each side would have an expert witness list loger than the Sydney phone book and every law firm in the Western World would have a brief. The judgement when written would be bigger than the Bible. No. Al Gore and the manipulating scientists will simply suffer the extreme embarrassment of being WRONG and irrelevant. No punishment could be worse for these egos.

Report this

00

* The document is seriously flawed, containing one or more errors so wrong they are not worth discussing.

* The document is known to be flawed, even by its authors.

* The people who know where the errors are will not come forward and speak about it, until they are called out on the errors by bad publicity.

The conclusion is that this document is not fit for any policy making. Nor will it get any better in the near future.

And the solution: Brush it off as to be fixed in 2013.

This is a perfectly good solution. So all policy making must stop, all existing policies based on flawed science must be wound back and we sit and wait until the IPCC can deliver a document containing meaningful science.

Report this

00