|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 6, 2010 21:41:06 GMT 1
I'd like to make a prediction that the fifth report will be highlighting Oceanic problems. It will dominate the accompanying media releases. You heard it here first.  |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 10, 2010 9:47:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 12, 2010 4:53:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 15, 2010 1:44:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 16, 2010 7:33:37 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 20, 2010 21:12:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 22, 2010 6:01:20 GMT 1
"Pachauri to implement IPCC reforms" Submitted by Senthil Kumar on 2010, October 21 - 18:42 'Top News' Singapore topnews.com.sg/content/25584-pachauri-implement-ipcc-reformsComment: Nothing new here, the 'Asian Nations' seem to take the IPCC more seriously than the Western'. The IPCC have 'blown it' [IMO], it's just a bunch of 'ole boys' hanging on to their jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 11:50:46 GMT 1
StuartG, what exactly are these regular 'bulletins' of yours supposed to be telling us? I'm still a bit confused about your position on AGW. Have you not yet come down off the fence?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 22, 2010 15:46:01 GMT 1
StuartG, what exactly are these regular 'bulletins' of yours supposed to be telling us? I'm still a bit confused about your position on AGW. Have you not yet come down off the fence? Abacus, Are there still people on the fence over the AGW issue? Surely not - I would have thought any sentient being could see that the whole sheebang is an utter scam by this time. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 16:17:30 GMT 1
It's one thing to assert this but another to provide evidence of it? Have you any?
|
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 22, 2010 23:24:18 GMT 1
Yes, lots.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 23:33:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 23, 2010 8:09:01 GMT 1
"StuartG, what exactly are these regular 'bulletins' of yours supposed to be telling us?" From that remark, I judge 'not a lot'. When R Smith first put up the thread, I thought it was a good idea so, have kept an eye on the news to find 'what they are now up to'. "It's one thing to assert this but another to provide evidence of it?" It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided, if the receiver of that information ignores it or evaluates it in an obtuse fashion, nothing can be done. So having said that, it's probably a good idea, before requests to 'prove it' are made to ask that this should be read... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_cyclethis Wiki version is not especially good as it has an 'American flavour' and, as You're probably aware, they are not especially subtle and effective. So having read that, try this more a more effective approach towards evaluation of information... www.security.govt.nz/methods/Cheers, StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 23, 2010 9:24:55 GMT 1
Scientists are not in the business of evaluating evidence in an obtuse fashion - it's more likely that will happen with people who have an agenda.
StuartG I was under the impression that you were somewhat on the fence over AGW but now it seems apparent you have been pedalling an anti-propaganda campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 23, 2010 12:25:07 GMT 1
"StuartG I was under the impression that you were somewhat on the fence over AGW but now it seems apparent you have been pedalling an anti-propaganda campaign."
A brilliant piece of deduction, especially considering I went out of my way to not answer the question.
I can see that You've no need for the 'Intelligence Cycle' [You didn't read it did You?] whatsoever, as You're quite happy to travel via a miscarriage.
StuartG
|
|
