A UKIP cunt wrote this in our local paper.

[Pensioner]

“As a member of the environment committee in the EU Parliament, it is my job to assess the facts on the climate in the interests of my Yorkshire and Lincolnshire constituents.

We know that the globe has been warmer in the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods.
We know carbon dioxide in the atmosphere precedes, not follows, historical periods of global warming. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is but 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the ocean, surface rocks, air, soil and life.

We know there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
We also know there are significant numbers of independent academics led by, among others, Professor Ian Plimer and Professor Robert Carter, who challenge obviously flawed warming hypotheses.

We know our electricity bills are soaring and jobs being lost to this unscientific lunacy.
Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolshire, Main Street, Wressle,”

[MrJonno]

I think thats very offensive to cunts to be associated with UKIP

[Pensioner]

The York press published my letter.

"I must say that if he is a member of the environment committee in the EU the question must be asked, what scientific qualifications do you need to be a member of that committee, Godfrey?

Mr Bloom also used the names of so-called “independent academics” to reinforce his argument. For example, Professor Ian Plimer wrote a book called Heaven And Earth.

Kurt Lambert, professor of earth science and president of the Australian Academy of Science, concluded: “Heaven And Earth is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist...” He went on to say: “If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material, but the critical analysis is missing.
“Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.”
Maybe Godfrey Bloom should spend a few hours talking to the scientists at the University of York instead of posting rubbish in the York Press.

[JimC]

The York press published my letter.

"I must say that if he is a member of the environment committee in the EU the question must be asked, what scientific qualifications do you need to be a member of that committee, Godfrey?

Mr Bloom also used the names of so-called “independent academics” to reinforce his argument. For example, Professor Ian Plimer wrote a book called Heaven And Earth.

Kurt Lambert, professor of earth science and president of the Australian Academy of Science, concluded: “Heaven And Earth is not a work of science; it is an opinion of an author who happens to be a scientist...” He went on to say: “If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material, but the critical analysis is missing.
“Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved.”
Maybe Godfrey Bloom should spend a few hours talking to the scientists at the University of York instead of posting rubbish in the York Press.

Pen...



It's a pity about Plimer; he gave some pretty good serves to creationist fuckwits in his day...

[Nicko]

It's a pity about Plimer; he gave some pretty good serves to creationist fuckwits in his day...

Indeed. I remember reading Telling Lies for God back in high school.

[mistermack]

Ok, UKIP aren't all bad. At least he got something right.
But you can be right about the environment, and still be wrong about everything else.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Is "independent academics" the new term for lunatic fringers?

[Cunt]

I think thats very offensive to cunts to be associated with UKIP

THANK YOU, MrJonno

[Svartalf]

Has anybody ever noted the self unconscious irony of an "independance party" that strives for the sovereignty of the UK and gives shit to the sovereignty of its components, even though two of those would indeed like to be freed from London's yoke (and I'm gonna use the 'No True Scotsman' blarny on anybody telling me that Wales and Scotland only have a minority of independantists) while the third, although a majority of its dwellers still want to be ruled from the thames, is actually territory revendicated by another sovereign state, and with good reason?

[Pensioner]

Ok, UKIP aren't all bad. At least he got something right.
But you can be right about the environment, and still be wrong about everything else.
.

[Feck]

Ok, UKIP aren't all bad. At least he got something right.
But you can be right about the environment, and still be wrong about everything else.
.

At what point do you concede / or is it never ever ? you are clutching at sun spots mate .

[Pensioner]

Brothers in arms, both of them are arsholes and both would not know the scientific method if it bit them in their balls.

[mistermack]

Brothers in arms, both of them are arsholes and both would not know the scientific method if it bit them in their balls.

So the scientific method is : Observe some historical phenomenon.
Formulate a theory.
Design some computer models.
If they don't fit, start again and tweak them till they do.
Announce to the world that the models fit the theory, as if it's some kind of proof.
Tell everyone that "these scientists believe it, so you should too".

The end.

[mistermack]

Ok, UKIP aren't all bad. At least he got something right.
But you can be right about the environment, and still be wrong about everything else.
.

At what point do you concede / or is it never ever ? you are clutching at sun spots mate .

When I see the models correctly predict the climate, consistently, time after time mate.
( I mean predict the future, not the past ).

[Feck]

Brothers in arms, both of them are arsholes and both would not know the scientific method if it bit them in their balls.

So the scientific method is : Observe some historical phenomenon.
Formulate a theory.
Design some computer models.
If they don't fit, start again and tweak them till they do.
Announce to the world that the models fit the theory, as if it's some kind of proof.
Tell everyone that "these scientists believe it, so you should too".

The end.

And prop up the lie by making every scientist talk about it like it's true apart from a hand full that actually only qualify as ' a scientist ' if you believe tabloid news papers. It's like those Evilutionists I mean what next ?they will be saying that diseases are caused by tiny little invisible things . Holy crap if you are going to listen to people like that then next you will be telling me that the earth is round .

But hey the weather forecast was wrong again today if they can't tell me when it's going to rain why should I moderate my consumption of a finite resource and reduce waste ?