The Medway Handyman wrote:

FWIW I don't see "Just how desperate are these people that want to
fake results? " as anything other than the use of **** to smear the
opposition with. The experiment might not be scientifically rigorous
but that is the problem with trying to dumb down the science to make
it understandable to the public at large. That TMH chose to pick up
on my counter rather than the original smear says far more about his
prejudices than it does about mine.

Dumbing down the science is the problem - because politicians can only react
to dumbing down - not being bright enough to do anything else.

It doesn't seem to matter to TMH whether the science is dumbed down or
not. Either way he doesn't understand it.

The fact that you think the demonstration actually has *anything* to
do with the greenhouse effect shows just how little you understand.
The fact that Dennis thinks it doesn't shows that he knows even less
about physics than I do and precious little about how to communicate
using the English Language either. The experiment would be a fake only
if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect didn't exist
at all. Now both these presumptions exist at significant levels among
deniers so the question arises does either Dennis or TMH actually
subscribe to either lunacy?

'Deniers' and 'Lunacy'? The facts of the matter are that the green tree
hugger pressure groups have created an industry devoted to proving that (a)
global warming actually exists and (b) that it is caused by man made CO2
emissions.

I suspect that the real fact of this particular matter is that TMH is a
clueless idiot.

Neither of which have been conclusively proven & both of which contradict
plain old common sense.

Sad that TMH is totally lacking in plain old common sense. The
mainstream scientific view is very much that global warming is happening
and that man made CO2 is playing a part.

Your incredible arrogance in calling them 'presumptions' is just that &
doesn't give you the moral high ground or make you right.

I was being generous. Saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or the
greenhouse effect doesn't exist are bare faced lies. Neither claim has
any basis in fact.

Any research department that comes up with data supporting the opposite view
has its funding removed.

Care to cite the evidence for that remark?

ISTM that the USA is awash with Oil and Coal money happy to fund adverts
denigrating any notion of global warming so there is at least a
reasonable presumption that the money is there to fund research aimed at
proving GW doesn't exist. The problem there of course is that if
something doesn't exist it will never be found however much they expend
looking. Oil money can put a puppet (GWB) into the White House but it
can't prove that GW doesn't exist.

And it will only get worse. Universities run courses in Environmental
Studies, every local authority/government dept/ quango/ large corporation
has an environmental department keen to preserve their cushy non productive
jobs.

If you want to expand university education down to the average thicko
(which was Blair's aim) you have to design courses the average thicko
can cope with and that certainly doesn't include cutting edge science.

'Green' has two meanings; Environmentally aware or extremely gullible.

Only two? Aren't you forgetting something vitally important?