Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!

The Register is extremely unreliable on this topic.

They have practically inverted the interpretation of the data that the
researchers have reported in Science by selective misquoting.

The so called Natural Philosopher fell for it hook line and sinker.
Condemned by his own actions as an AGW denier and a dittohead.

Congratulations on being a true believer.

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Thank You Martin for showing the innate prejudice and bigotry of the
warmist agenda yet again.


So far:

if it supports global warming, its AGW
If it doesn't its weather.

Now we can add:

If it supports global warming its careful responsible science
If it doesn't its vile lies from big money vested interest published on
right wing blogs...

...despite the fact that it is the renewables industry which DEPENDS on
AGW for its existence.."The global renewable energy market grew by 20.4%
in 2008 to reach a value of $310.5 billion. "

as a random web quote. Which is probably right to an order of magnitude
at least.

Now how many people would lose their jobs and research grants if AGW
suddenly became a side show..


Cui Bono.

Do you work in the renewables industry? Are you an academic on a
research grant? I think we should be told..