Global Warming Think Tank Brings Balance to Climate Science Debate

from my Facebook post

At a now defunct site named Gather, friends Graham , Vic, Kelli, and others not present here as far as I know, were often the targets of attempted bullying for our efforts to present a balanced view of the global warming debate in the face of a tsunami of government – watermelon (green on the outside, red on the iside) propaganda from a particularly obnoxious bunch of Warmageddonist zealots.

Well now they are getting their come uppance, we all agree the climate changes, we all agree we should look after the planet, but we sceptics were right, the whole carbon Dioxide driven Anthropogenic Global Warming scare was a scam to enable left wing government to tax their people to penury while obscenely rich bastards go obscenely richer by trading carbon credits and picking up subsisdies for not generating green electricity.

Anyone wishing to grovel will be graciously acknowledged.

Here’s a taster then follow the bold link to the full post:

The Royal Society has misrepresented current thinking on climate change by presenting new theories as established facts and leaving out evidence that doesn’t support man made global warming dogma, a group of climate scientists has claimed.

In December, the Royal Society published a Short Guide to Climate Science, which it presented as a definitive guide to all things climate science. It asks and answers 20 questions, some of which display clear bias within the phrasing of the question, such as “How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?” and “Climate is always changing. Why is climate change of concern now?”

In response, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has produced The Small Print – What the Royal Society Left Out, in order to bring balance to the evidence base. It takes the Royal Society’s original 20 questions in turn and present a “fuller picture” on each.

Warmageddonists will claim of course that GWPF are ‘not proper scientists. But don’t proper scientists present ALL the evidence to back up their conclusions? So what does that make those research grant phishing cerry pickers at the Royal Society?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s