On 20/01/18 08:57, RJH wrote:
I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on
anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to
support anything I say, or claim any expertise.

Then why are you cpommenting at all.


Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1
(supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do manage
to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited pretty quickly
and retract.

Well no, they are not.

That is just more faklse news.

I put a monograph out about renewable energy using a name I had *never
used before on the internet* .

Back in around 2011.

Within a day a blog reported thet the 'well known climate demnier author
XXX XXX had been thoroughly discredited years before'

That was enough to tell me that there exist on te internet people whose
JOBS are to discredit anyone who isn't singing from their hymn sheet.

Sites like skeptikalscience.com and desmogblog are sites set up to do
just that.

Shout down and lie about what is going on. Ther is big big money in
climate change - trillions of dollars worldwide, and there is plenty of
loose change to buy bloggers and scientists up.

A professor admitted to me 'we actually wanted to do the job of
researching efficient coal combustion, but we couldnt get a grant till
we mentioned that it would enable 'carbon capture' to be done more
easily, if next to impossible is easier than completely impossible, anyway'

The money flows into 'climate change'. No one funds the truth. Who gives
a **** about the truth, what we want is profits and to rape consumers?

http://vps.templar.co.uk/slideshow.p...achine-800.gif



--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman