Java Jive wrote:

On 14 Sep 2013 16:19:18 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

Java Jive wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:14:35 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The BBC is totally biased.

It is certainly less biased than you, for example.

For a broadcaster with a remit to maintain balance, it is totally
biased on the topic having taken a policy decision to do so.

It has taken a policy decision based on the best scientific evidence
available, one which agrees with the general understanding and
agreement of the vast majority of scientists.

Laughable. There was no presentation of any opposing views because
none were invited to the secret conference.

I no more expect them
to give credence to denialists such as yourself any more than I expect
them to give latter day druids credence.

Then that is unscientific, but not unexpected.

You parade 'science' when it suits you, and hurl abuse where it
doesn't.

It refuses to act as any real scientist does and debate for and against
for climate change.

Because the real science has now moved beyond that.

And how would you know 'real science' (whatever that is) from any
other sort?

Few, if any, real scientists involved question it any more, so there
is no need for debate, and therefore debate can and must move on to
more worthwhile subjects.

'Wireless' was declared a settled art in 1903.

And AFAIAA no-one has tried to deny its existence since.

No-one uses the methods of 1903, either.

How would you reognise a 'real scientist'? By wearing the same
blinkers as you?

I'd recognise a real scientist as one whose judgement is evidence
based rather than delivered from a position on unscientific
quasi-religious denialist bias such as yours.

Wow! An own-goal in just one sentence.

When evidence is hidden, because 'they will use it against us', how
can you judge it?

The whole edifice is rotten because they tried to hide the data,
saying 'they'll use it against us'.

Again, you are arguing from the particular to the general, as you have
often, but always incorrectly in your case, accused me of doing. One
bad piece of science doesn't make the whole edifice rotten.

It does, if the whole ****ing edifice is based on it.

A curious position to take, as if
the data actually supported their position, they would be only too
pleased to publish it and shut people up. This is not how science is
done, in case you were wondering.

Neither is ignoring an overwhelming body of evidence, as you do.

Do you mean the evidence that was witheld, because 'they might use it
against us', or some other evidence?

--
Terry Fields