The ethanol scam

"Jim Burns" wrote:

I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly word
for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type
of
research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely be
denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical questions
if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?


Check that video again, Jim; you sure it was BBC? Got a link?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Yep, it was the BBC... I actually got the link from Jay. It looks like
U-Tube pulled it due to copy right concerns.. see
http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/progview.asp?ID=11
Jim

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jim Burns" wrote:

I recently watched a BBC documentary on U-Tube that stated that nearly
word
for word and added that scientists requesting funding for nearly any type
of
research had better link it to an environmental issue or it would surely
be
denied. They also interviewed scientists who had been shunned from the
scientific community for asking even the most innocent or logical
questions
if those questions shed any skepticism on the climate change theory. Of
course, this might lead to hundreds if not thousands of projects loosing
their funding.. so I guess if it's funded, it must be science? and of
course all science is good science? wait.. all funded science is good
science! or would the prefer "only funded science is good science"?


Check that video again, Jim; you sure it was BBC? Got a link?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:


Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

We've had this discussion in r.a.p before. See the "Al Gore's Private Jet"
thread.

If you wish to discuss further, see you at alt.global-warming

Dan Luke wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:


Much of the "climate change" "science" is hokum and poorly-devised models,
resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the flimsy
IPCC case.

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy
IPCC case.


I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming that
is disputed, and rightly so.

Eeyore wrote in
:



Dan Luke wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:


Much of the "climate change" "science" is hokum and poorly-devised
models,
resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

The hokum is coming from the deniers' side, Orval.

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.



Oh, so now you've turned into a smog spotter as well, eh my litle net
kkkkop#/?



Bertie

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote:


The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy
IPCC case.


Post some.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

Hawking?! That hack? What...next you're gonna tell us the Vatican isn't
the center of the universe!

-c
"The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable
from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally
eretical..." - Cardinal Bellarmine, in condemnation of Galileo.

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
Much of the "climate change"
"science" is hokum and poorly-devised models, resulting in
Garbage-garbage out.

So how many computational models have you written?

Quite a few. How about you, jim?


What are your qualifications that make your opinion worth considering?

Why should I accept your opinion over the statements of, say, Nobel prize
winner Frank Sherwood Rowland (or Stephen Hawking) - or other
climatologists?

How about 30+ years writing missile simulation models and bumping them
against observed phenomena? I know the drill.

I have seen others make incorrect conclusions from data that, on further
investigation, showed opposite conclusions.

BTW, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist.