 |
|
| uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
June 14th 10, 08:00 PM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus?
On Jun 14, 7:57*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...32742/did-the-... Comments, please. David Christainsen No. On all counts. |
|
#2
June 14th 10, 09:02 PM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus?
On 14 June, 21:00, Dawlish wrote:
On Jun 14, 7:57*pm, Meteorologist wrote: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...32742/did-the-... Comments, please. David Christainsen No. On all counts. Of course it did. It squirmed, lied, misrepresented and generally behaved disgracefully. It is a purely political and non-scientific "institution", and should be disbanded. It's an utter disgrace to science, and populated by self-interested individuals with a dogma at stake, bordering on religion, and a lot of individual personal gain. The cack has hit the fan, and will continue to do so. It's a busted flush, a discredited excuse for an organisation, and you, Dawlish are just as devious if you honestly believe the tommyrot this bunch of charlatans advocate. Shame on them, and my God, when they fall, it'll be worth watching, and not before time. And they WILL fall... |
|
#3
June 14th 10, 09:39 PM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus?
On Jun 14, 9:02*pm, Natsman wrote:
On 14 June, 21:00, Dawlish wrote: On Jun 14, 7:57*pm, Meteorologist wrote: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...32742/did-the-.... Comments, please. David Christainsen No. On all counts. Of course it did. *It squirmed, lied, misrepresented and generally behaved disgracefully. *It is a purely political and non-scientific "institution", and should be disbanded. *It's an utter disgrace to science, and populated by self-interested individuals with a dogma at stake, bordering on religion, and a lot of individual personal gain. The cack has hit the fan, and will continue to do so. *It's a busted flush, a discredited excuse for an organisation, and you, Dawlish are just as devious if you honestly believe the tommyrot this bunch of charlatans advocate. *Shame on them, and my God, when they fall, it'll be worth watching, and not before time. *And they WILL fall... .......................well there's someone's unbiased opinion. "cack"; there's a word I haven't heard since primary school. 8)) |
|
#4
June 15th 10, 12:11 AM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus?
On Jun 15, 8:02*am, Natsman wrote:
On 14 June, 21:00, Dawlish wrote: On Jun 14, 7:57*pm, Meteorologist wrote: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...32742/did-the-.... Comments, please. David Christainsen No. On all counts. Of course it did. *It squirmed, lied, misrepresented and generally behaved disgracefully. *It is a purely political and non-scientific "institution", and should be disbanded. *It's an utter disgrace to science, and populated by self-interested individuals with a dogma at stake, bordering on religion, and a lot of individual personal gain. The cack has hit the fan, and will continue to do so. *It's a busted flush, a discredited excuse for an organisation, and you, Dawlish are just as devious if you honestly believe the tommyrot this bunch of charlatans advocate. *Shame on them, and my God, when they fall, it'll be worth watching, and not before time. *And they WILL fall... Absolute and utter rot. Put your $0.02 worth in at NZ's "Hot Topic" if you dare - its scientists have shredded better opponents than you many times. If you are young enough to be around in 15-20 years' time, you'd better assume a low profile - or be looking very red-faced. |
|
#5
June 15th 10, 09:20 PM
posted to uk.sci.weather
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus?
"RWood" wrote in message ... On Jun 15, 8:02 am, Natsman wrote: On 14 June, 21:00, Dawlish wrote: On Jun 14, 7:57 pm, Meteorologist wrote: http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...32742/did-the-... Comments, please. David Christainsen No. On all counts. Of course it did. It squirmed, lied, misrepresented and generally behaved disgracefully. It is a purely political and non-scientific "institution", and should be disbanded. It's an utter disgrace to science, and populated by self-interested individuals with a dogma at stake, bordering on religion, and a lot of individual personal gain. The cack has hit the fan, and will continue to do so. It's a busted flush, a discredited excuse for an organisation, and you, Dawlish are just as devious if you honestly believe the tommyrot this bunch of charlatans advocate. Shame on them, and my God, when they fall, it'll be worth watching, and not before time. And they WILL fall... Absolute and utter rot. Put your $0.02 worth in at NZ's "Hot Topic" if you dare - its scientists have shredded better opponents than you many times. If you are young enough to be around in 15-20 years' time, you'd better assume a low profile - or be looking very red-faced. "very red-faced" no doubt that'll be AGW. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Not a 97% consensus, but a 99.9% consensus | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
| Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus? | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
| Did the IPCC Overstate its Man-Made Warming Consensus? | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
| There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Linear Mode
