According to Lord Oxburgh...the Science was not the subject of their study. Go figure.
Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit
Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oooh wow! London just immolated on this little tidbit!According to Lord Oxburgh...the Science was not the subject of their study. Go figure.
Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit
They're doing the same thing they do every night, Pinky.What they are doing is SO important that they cannot allow the FACTS to get in the way...
They are like these other folks that just can't admit they're wrong,
even when EVERYTHING ~ fact and supposition ~ points to the truth.
According to Lord Oxburgh...the Science was not the subject of their study. Go figure.
Oxburgh and the Jones Admission Climate Audit
your proof is based on a fucking opinion poll of answers given by anonymous members on Yahoo.Time for the skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty.
Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.
Gaea's achin' pancreas...are you really holding Yahoo Answers up as a knowledgeable source?Time for the skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty.
Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.
Gaea's achin' pancreas...are you really holding Yahoo Answers up as a knowledgeable source?Time for the skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty.
Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.
You backed the wrong horse, Skippy. If they had science on their side, they wouldn't have to resort to such dishonesty.
The thing is, you've got it backward. It's up to the AGW cult to prove their case. They have failed to do so. Therefore, no AGW.Gaea's achin' pancreas...are you really holding Yahoo Answers up as a knowledgeable source?Time for the skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty.
Univ. of East Anglia climate unit exonerated: Time for skeptics to address their intellectual dishonesty? - Yahoo! Answers
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
It is unlikely that "skeptics" will address their dishonesty, but they can be made financially accountable. Generally, a party that brings a frivolous case to court is responsible for the costs. Since CRU is exonerated, the costs of the proceedings falls on the "skeptics". I am sure the bill for the inquiry was in the millions and there will be additional administrative costs associated with collecting the debt. In addition, I think that Jones should now seek damages for lost productivity plus substantial punitive damages. The costs can be split among the newspapers and other media that published dishonest articles about Jones and the CRU. In response to future requests for information, Jones should send a copy of the most recent IPCC report and all scientific publications referenced therein. There will of course be a per page printing charge $1 for the IPCC report plus copyright fees of $30 to $40 payable for each of the 8000 plus papers referenced by the IPCC report. The approximately 200,000 pages of information (1000 kg) should be couriered on same day service to the "skeptic" requesting information. The "skeptic" will be responsible for the courier charges.
You backed the wrong horse, Skippy. If they had science on their side, they wouldn't have to resort to such dishonesty.
Dave, ol' ass, it is better than reading your lack of reply to anything at all. Thus far, you offer yap-yap, with zero backing data.
Yes crocks... ya got me.Hell, I succeeded in getting you sputtering like a dry old maid.
Hey! That's not nice! Dr. Horrible is at least funny and entertaining.Yes crocks... ya got me.Hell, I succeeded in getting you sputtering like a dry old maid.
No, I'm just giving up on reading your posts. They have no connect with reality, only some freaky fever dream fantasy you hope some day to inflict on all of us while you gibber and drool over the end of the world unless you rule it.
A regular Dr. Horrible you are and I'm through being your audience or giving you the platform to speak.
So here's me, pulling your mic. Sod off you pathetic git and may you suffer what you have wished for others to live in.
Yap-yap.