Thursday
Sep022010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Climategate report
I am now in a position to reveal that my report for GWPF on the Climategate inquiries will be released on 14th September.
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
Is Junk Science becoming endemic?
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (15)
Pity it's not the 7th Sept?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/2/climategate-hearings-reconvened.html
Excellent. My diary is clear.
It lacks a bit of razzamatzz.
It needs more build up.
"By popular demand" or "Just when you thought it was safe ...." or "The Sceptic Strikes Back"
What about a trumpet fanfare?
Ah........It's worse than we thought?
Ooohh...ooohh...oohh I think it's called premature anticipation.
Now you have announced 14th September I bet you will get a few rave (raving) reviews before then.
I wonder who will be first?
Almost two weeks is sufficient time for Bob Ward to write more pre-emptive criticisms.
Has anyone let Bob know?
The reaction to your report is as predictable as the original whitewashes. You know they will reject it because of who you are. They won't read it, and you may as well publish a blank page, the crits will be the same, probably they are already written, the 'line to take' has been agreed for weeks.
What a futile pantomime the whole thing is, two sides each talking past the other, no communication going on at all, save to the converted.
Oh no is isn't!
Oh yes it is!
Behind you!
I can't see anything.
BEHIND YOU!
In my youth I was condemned to a couple of years writing construction specifications. After a bit too much of it, which took about 6 months, I started inserting sleepers in the text to see if anyone read them.
They did as was attested by the arrival of a "well-wrapped" sample of horse manure intended for tree plantings at the project engineer's desk some 5 years after the requirement had been inserted in an otherwise innocent landscaping specification.
Your Grace, i suggest you do the same, although maybe something a little more subtle so that we might better ascertain whether your critics have actually read your handiwork.
Maybe we could have a "warmist" byline writing competition? Before the event... I am sure we all know the types of phrases that could be used... help them out*
Andrew Montford's report fails to... paid for by the GWPF an organisation that is... the conclusions reflect a point of view against the consensus... it will not be taken seriously by climate scientists...
*make them work harder is what I really mean, who wants to be accused of plagiarism?
You have rounded off Oxburgh's day nicely. September. Not noted for peace and harmony. I guess we know what to expect.
Looking forward to it. I know it will be a good read.
Please, please, if you can, get an advance copy of your report to the members of the Science & Technology Committee of MPs, or at the very least to Graham Stringer, the most effective MP at its last meeting.
Although, sadly, the chances are that most members of the Committee are as biased and/or ignorant and/or naive as the last lot.
If I read it in bed, will I need to keep all the lights on and check under the bed first?