Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Media coverage of the S&TC hearings | Main | Better...but enough? »
Wednesday
Oct272010

Josh 50

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (14)

The results of the Scientific American poll on the state of climate science makes very interesting reading.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

It would appear, despite the very mis-leading questions, the sceptical side of SciAm readers shows thru.

I suppose we are all sceptics now.

Oct 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Nice one.

Oct 27, 2010 at 12:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The results of the Scientific American poll on the state of climate science makes very interesting reading.

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
*...
* a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 79.1%
*...

Wow!

Oct 27, 2010 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

I'm deeply suspicious about that poll: they'll be furiously correlating the attitude to JC with the attitude to CAGW generally and I'm prepared to bet that they'll find that there is indeed a strong correlation.

Warmist response: JC's gone native and can therefore be thrown under the bus.
the fact that sciam has a large sceptic readership that has bothered to respond to this poll will be meaningless - it'll be dismissed as astroturfing or somesuch.

Oct 27, 2010 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Pedant-General

Josh, on the ball again.

You are inspired.

Peter Walsh

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

Excellent!

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered Commentervivendi

Josh, great.

Had to think who JC was. Jesus Christ? John Christy? ah, of course... "our" Judith Curries-no-favours.

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterLucy Skywalker

Does UEA stand for "Useless Ears Acton?" Very Simian Josh!

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Three Sir Humphreys all in a row.

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

H/T climatechangedispatch

If you want to see what some of the Lords (and Ladies) think about the IPCC, try this, first few minutes

http://climatechangedispatch.com/politics-propaganda/8008-ipcc-chairman-should-be-replaced

Oct 27, 2010 at 5:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

No 1 said- actually, thats good enough for government work
No 2 said- actually, not only that, we walk on water
No 3 said- actually, all that but triple plus, we've got more papers than a roll of andrex

Oct 27, 2010 at 7:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

The considerted opinion of a blog that wouldn't recognise science if it ran them over with a ten ton truck and they were asked to recognise their assailant.

Priceless.

Oct 28, 2010 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBishop Phil

Josh.Re your comments over at WUWT re the Monckton/Delingpole 'dis-invitation'. You mention Lucia @ Blackboard, could I have link please. I can also find no mention of Delingpole being 're-invited. In which case Lord Monckton will be left picking though the left-overs when Helmer & Agnew have gone at 1.30, duly watched by Acton, Davies, Liss and Andrews who will have finished theirs. In any case James is in India checking 'bio-diversity loss'.

Oct 29, 2010 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Josh. Sorry, have now found Lucia and 'The Blackboard'. She makes quite a meal of 'Lunchgate'.

Oct 29, 2010 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>