No really, it was all bulltulip?

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

EternalOptimist replied

24 December 2012, 12:16
Originally posted by zeitghost

I see that the current Xmas Bah! Humbug! issue of New Scientist is still going on about AGW in tedious detail.

It's a religion, not science.

for anyone who is mildly interested, and who is wondering what this latest bolks is all about-

The IPCC said that the planet would warm by x
When the planet didnt warm by x, they said it would have, but aerosols kept it cool
Now they are saying aerosols have not kept the planet cool

but they seem to have forgotten their original prediction, and have not explained the discrepency
Leave a comment:
Doggy Styles replied

24 December 2012, 12:07
Originally posted by zeitghost

I see that the current Xmas Bah! Humbug! issue of New Scientist is still going on about AGW in tedious detail.

It's a religion, not science.

I used to think that of Giant Alien Lizards.
Leave a comment:
BlasterBates replied

22 December 2012, 11:23
Here is the scientific argument from Professor Judith Curry that climate models are bunk.

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD | Climate Etc.

She is writing a paper about why the models are wrong, and it is her expertise, atmospheric science, so lets wait and see.

Last edited by BlasterBates; 22 December 2012, 11:54.
Leave a comment:
EternalOptimist replied

22 December 2012, 03:27
Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

Ah, the Washingon Times - founded, and funded, by the ~~Moonies~~ Unification Church.

Next week: DP cites L. Ron Hubbard in a debate about the true meaning of Christmas

good point

luckily Forbes has a similar story

in fact, many main stream news organisations are picking up on the fact that 16 years of no warming just might be a problem for the warming theory
Leave a comment:
NickFitz replied

22 December 2012, 02:04
Ah, the Washingon Times - founded, and funded, by the ~~Moonies~~ Unification Church.

Next week: DP cites L. Ron Hubbard in a debate about the true meaning of Christmas
Leave a comment:
minestrone replied

21 December 2012, 21:03
frack off.
Leave a comment:
EternalOptimist replied

21 December 2012, 20:54
The cagw scare mongering would be an idle intellectual curiosity, if it was not for the fact that we are now paying sky high prices for dirt-cheap energy
Leave a comment:
OwlHoot replied

21 December 2012, 20:53
Oh that - Thought you were talking about that stupid Mayan calendar thing

Although come to think of it, today isn't over yet
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn started a topic No really, it was all bulltulip?

21 December 2012, 20:46
No really, it was all bulltulip?

EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news - Washington Times

More lies from the IPCC.
Tags: None