freecounterpoint: RICO time?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

RICO time?

12 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Fun and games in the Guardian's comments:

podrag
21 Nov 2009, 11:04AM

I don't think Bob understands the gravity of the situation. The emails reveal:

1) Fudging data
2) Deliberately keeping 'sceptics' out of the peer review process

Climate change science, therefore, cannot be viewed as science.

greenfellow
21 Nov 2009, 11:15AM
Yet another load of complete tosh from the denier fraternity. I think the Royal Society might have something to say to be honest. That statement is just so completely ignorant its not even worth responding to in any great length.; 11/22/2009 8:11 AM
Mr roT said...: A post with (as of now) 26 comments, and you missed it.

Tecs, Who are all of you? And where's my horse?; 11/22/2009 8:35 AM
Mr roT said...: I like greenfellow, Tecs. That statement is just so completely ignorant its not even worth responding to in any great length.

That's the standard Harvard Sq. "I'm stumped" response.; 11/22/2009 8:36 AM
Mr roT said...: Carlin on religion. Applies to the warmists?; 11/22/2009 8:49 AM
Tecumseh said...: I missed your post? That's cosmic chutzpah of the first order. I simply figured it's time to move on to a fresh post -- a continuation of my initial post, and your piggybacking one. This is the gift that keeps giving!

And yes, I liked that greenfellow's reply, too. It's all oh so Harvardish and condescending, but only putting pink lipstick on a very limp hand, if I can mix and and match metaphors.; 11/22/2009 9:21 AM
Mr roT said...: Nah, Tecs. You forgot all about it. Pay up.
As to mixing metaphors, I think yours is very interesting.

Is it (lipstick on a pig + limp-wristed effete Harvard Sq homo)/2 ?

As Drudge might say, "Developing..."; 11/22/2009 9:30 AM
Mr roT said...: A good new one: RayNoble
21 Nov 2009, 11:01AM

Climate scientists have only themselves to blame for this mess. They have played politics with the issue for decades and trapped themselves into positions that went beyond the evidence base. The revelation of these emails is in the public interest and they deserve a better response from the Univeristy than they have so far received.

Had they been humble in their work they would have acknowledged that their models of climate change were not exact and what you get out of them depends on what assumptions made in making the models and how the data is put in.

I await the development of this story with great interest.; 11/22/2009 9:32 AM
Mr roT said...: An explanation down in the comments...

Remember this post, Pops?; 11/22/2009 9:41 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: No more fun and games in the Guardian's comments. They've closed the comments to the public. Neato, pinko Lysenkos; 11/22/2009 1:01 PM
Mr roT said...: Try this link, AA. Sometimes, when Tecs sets a link, it's approximate.; 11/22/2009 1:09 PM
Tecumseh said...: Your link is == to mine, Mr Rot. Plagiarism!!!; 11/22/2009 4:05 PM
Mr roT said...: Wrongo, Dr Html!; 11/22/2009 9:23 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)