No, you wouldn't see any sense in doing that because you can't. Slurs
and insinuations are your game but you don't even make sense when you
You and T have just been ranting on about 'keeping politics out of it'
and you even state that lies are used to please bosses. Shame that you
throw those comments in without being capable of applying that to your
YOU posted the link to the Telegraph UK article and one simple google
search shows up both the politics behind that article (right wing,
conservative and Conservative Party) and the "please the bosses by
telling lies" role of the journalist.
YOU show all the signs of being a religious/political zealot. You
aren't prepared to investigate your beliefs nor to analyse what you do
post or to defend your stance based on evidence.
No "slurs and insinuations". I have seen this too. The
perpetrators call it the "Gravy Train". Anyone who rocks the
boat catches hell.
Instead of insulting him, why don't you ask him about
his experience. Then maybe share some of yours?
You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues.
It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics
need to butt out of science.
Did you notice that the source you cited got character
assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness
rules science (Lysenkoism).
-T (A.K.A. Todd)
"well-known agenda"? "repeated denial of basic scientific facts"?
"overall lack of credibility"? And, you wonder why our side thinks
your side is a religoun.
By the way, that was Fran's cite, not mine. I didn't even bother to
read it as there are tons of evidence of fudging and fabricating
on your side. Lysenkoism is well in play.
That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on
to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said
that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist".
You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line
going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others
who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his
sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side
land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links
Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also
is not the least bit credible.
Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these
days to verify what they see online.
Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable
facts online would create in informed citizenry.
Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and
We are way OT now but just one more titbit before I behave myself.
Some books for those who want to know more:
"Merchants of Doubt" Oreskes & Conway, The lobby for tobacco and against
"The Republican War of Science" Mooney, When politics controls not just
opinions but data.
"This Changes Everything" Klein, The relationship between growth, capitalism
and climate denial.
It is sometimes easy to assume that the author is fairly representing
the referenced work. Listing the reference is almost a bluff.
I got slightly taken by a less loony example of this recently. I
caught an article talking about how Forbes magazine had trashed
Boehner about some recent events. I had the intended reaction --
"Forbes leans so far to the right that it only tans on one side,
and *they* bashed Boehner?"
Then I read the actual Forbes piece. Instead of Forbes staff, it
was written by an occasional contributor who is sort of a token
liberal. ("Liberal Bashes Boehner" is pretty much a "Dog Bites
Man" story.) And the alleged crushing was (to me) pretty mild, and
only appeared in the last third of the piece.
But 90+% of the people who read the first article I saw probably
believed that something amazing had happened.
The same prediction was made for cable TV, and television in general
before that. It may have even been made for radio. Unfortunately,
we keep letting human nature in.
Drew Lawson | If dreams were thunder,
| and lightning was desire,
Here is a fun read from the non-idealogical (non-religious)
side of climate studies.
"The President of Tuvalu continues to claim that his islands
are being flooded. Yet the tide-gauge data provide clear
indications of stability over the last 30 years (Mörner,
2007ac, 2010b; Murphy, 2007). In Vanuatu, the tide gauge
indicates a stable sea level over the last 14 years (Mörner,
Great telemetry too
That is only a tiny tid bit of the article. It sounds like
Tuvalu has their hand out for money!
Can't wait for Professor Nils-Axel Mörner to be called a known liar
by the Lysenkoists, yada, yada, yada . (Then they will discover
that -- surprise -- "-T" is actually "Todd!" Duh!!!)
Religion and politics need to butt out of science.
Whether warming, cooling or neither, the science has been highly
politicized mainly by those that are government control freaks, i.e.
progressives/liberals. Just trying to point out that it is not beyond
scientists to cherry pick data or even lie for their own advancement or
for their political views. Having worked most of my life in R&D I found
the majority of scientists bent to the left as if they had never left
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.