|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 24, 2011 16:17:51 GMT 1
“Dr Jones's life-work has been studying Drosophilla and snails. I suspect that working with humans, who may have views other than his, might be too much for the poor chap...” “He is looking at snails and how their genes may have changed over the last 50 years in Europe and the effects of climate change” “good lord, are we, the taxpayer, having to fork out twice for research into snails and climate change. Surely, this is something the French should be paying for?” “I'm sure that Jones and his snail studies is just as qualified as Suzuki and his fruitfly studies to pontificate on anything and everything pertaining to ‘global warming’." bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/21/on-the-media.html?currentPage=2#commentsSay no more!!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 24, 2011 16:30:56 GMT 1
You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. I suggest that you have a look at this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensusIf there are competing theories then without consensus it is difficult for the scientific community to decide which of competing theories is correct. Of course this doesn't guarantee that a theory is correct, but it allows us to see where the balance of scientific evidence lies. In the field of climate change this is very much in favour of AGW. As usual you litter your posts with false innuendo. I have never said any of these things. Of course nothing is settled. However the consensus of the majority of scientists is far more likely to be correct than competing theories supported by hardly anyone. Stop wasting our time with these irrelevancies.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 24, 2011 16:58:02 GMT 1
Prat.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 24, 2011 21:20:47 GMT 1
Why we should give the cold shoulder to a BBC Trust Review that argues the broadcaster should ignore global-warming 'deniers' By David Rose Last updated at 1:45 AM on 24th July 2011 "Whether the staff of the BBC, facing budget cuts and the loss of 3,000 jobs, will consider last week’s BBC Trust Review of the corporation’s science coverage as money well spent is doubtful: according to a spokeswoman, it cost £140,000. Unfortunate as this is, the Review’s wider impact is rather more pernicious." .... "But the real problem with the Jones Review is its bewilderingly misleading content. Jones writes that his own knowledge is ‘remarkably broad, but fantastically shallow’. " .... "The report contains a startling statistic: 46 per cent of all BBC science news stories deal with global warming, although, as Jones writes, this massively over-represents the tiny number of researchers who work on it compared to the thousands working in other fields." .... "A few weeks ago, I listened to an eloquent speech by the Czech president Vaclav Klaus, who spent much of his life under the ideological yoke of communist repression. Now he saw old patterns re-emerging: ‘The arrogance with which global warming activists and their media allies express themselves is something I know well from the past.’ " www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2018143/Steve-Jones-BBC-Trust-Review-global-warming-trusted.htmlwww.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/alleged-pen-thief-and-czech-president-vaclav-klaus-to-address-lnp-anti-climate-change-function/story-e6freoof-1226086214856
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 25, 2011 2:29:59 GMT 1
"it is difficult for the scientific community to decide which of competing theories is correct"
There is no such thing as "the scientific community" so IT does not need to "decide" anything. Science is not about voting or "deciding", or "communities" nickRs. It is about which hypotheses best explain the OBSERVATIONS and help us to understand nature. All it needs, as Einstein, said, is a single scientist with a single insight and all the rest can go hang (or words to that effect).
Had you not noticed, nickRs, NOTHING much is happening to either sea level or temperature at the moment so there is sod all to explain - EXCEPT cyclical natural variations and the "thermostatic" countervailing responses of the planet's systems to changes internal and external.
"it is difficult for the scientific community to decide which of competing theories is correct"
Tough! Maybe none of them are, silly arse! Had you ever thought of that?
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Jul 27, 2011 9:38:52 GMT 1
The First Law of Reports is that their conclusions always please those who commissioned the study.
And who commissioned this one?
The BBC Trust, of course!
|
|