Buy
Books
Click images for more details
The extraordinary attempts to prevent sceptics being heard at the Institute of Physics
Displaying Slide 2 of 5
Twitter
Recent comments
Why am I the only one that have any interest in this: "CO2 is all ...
Much of the complete bollocks that Phil Clarke has posted twice is just a rehash of ...
Much of the nonsense here is a rehash of what he presented in an interview with ...
Much of the nonsense here is a rehash of what he presented in an interview with ...
The Bish should sic the secular arm on GC: lese majeste'!
Currently discussing
-
Mar 5 - Chaplin
on
Discover a source of quality free audiobooks -
Feb 11 - Head Soccer
on
Can Tadarise 10 Be Used in Men with Diabetes for Improving Erectile Function?
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
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.
Nice one.
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!
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.
Josh, on the ball again.
You are inspired.
Peter Walsh
Excellent!
Josh, great.
Had to think who JC was. Jesus Christ? John Christy? ah, of course... "our" Judith Curries-no-favours.
Does UEA stand for "Useless Ears Acton?" Very Simian Josh!
Three Sir Humphreys all in a row.
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
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
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.
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'.
Josh. Sorry, have now found Lucia and 'The Blackboard'. She makes quite a meal of 'Lunchgate'.