the fraud continues to unravel
Posted by: eddie boy on 15 February 2010
Posted on: 15 February 2010 by David Scott
Eddie Boy,
If you had sense enough to see it, the frank, even handed and open minded nature of Phil Jones's statements seriously undermines any notion of a conspiracy here. In truth the contrast in this regard between his utterances and those of the typical anti climate change campaigner should serve as an indication of who is more likely to be worth listening to.
Posted on: 15 February 2010 by Jim Lawson
Oh, I'm listening to him...
"Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say “the debate on climate change is over,” the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this,” Jones said. “This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well.”
Posted on: 16 February 2010 by mongo
The word count on all of this (climate change and the emotionalism surrounding it), and the associated verbiage is so monumentally huge that I doubt any sense will be made of it all this century. It is a task for future historians.
Posted on: 16 February 2010 by Paper Plane
quote:
It is a task for future historians.
If there are any...
steve
Posted on: 16 February 2010 by mongo
There probably will be.
But will they be working in a desert or on a glacier?
