View Single Post
Old May 24th 17, 12:07 PM posted to
[email protected]
external usenet poster
Posts: 7
Default Climate science

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 15:54:53 UTC+1, wrote:
On 23/05/2017 12:57, wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 03:37:49 UTC+1, wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:27, lewhiggins wrote:
On 20/05/2017 21:20, Bill Wright wrote:

That explains it then. He's a bloke who can write but he knows **** all
about global warming.

And you do, apparently. Please supply evidence of your peer-reviewed

I'm assessing him not by my own knowledge but by the knowledge of the
scientists who are not in the pay of the green blob.

Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue about how science is done.

Scientists are "in the pay" of seeking after truth by observation and
experiment, not in the "green blob".

Unfortunately science has degraded and disgraced itself over this matter.

There are endless examples of evidence fiddling, data suppression, data
manipulation, and so forth.

Scientists are humans not gods. They have human frailties, fixed
beliefs, and mortgages.

Here's a minor example:

There are thousands like that.


Of course scientists are human and make mistakes or are outright fakers or plagiarists. The difference with climate science is the worldwide consensus of scientists and prestigious science bodies. It's a mighty big international conspiracy - could it be David Icke's reptilians , the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the Royal Antedeluvian Order of the Buffalo?