Global Warming To Hit Thailand's Rice Production

[canuckamuck]

It is clear that you really know this book well: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Maybe you wrote one of the chapters.

I am so stupid (total idiot) that I feel comfortable over here. When you talk it makes sense.

But I wonder if any person will actually talk about the subject of the thread.

Oh, I forgot (happens a lot). In the book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, it says you should attempt to turn any post related to global warming into a false debate to create doubt, even though there is no doubt.

There I go again, spilling the beans. I am so freaking stupid.

I should not have said "there is no doubt." The last thing we want to do is to start telling the truth (I think that is in chapter six of the book).

As simple as it is, I am not sure I am supposed to reveal global warming denier strategy here.

Is it OK to tell people what you are doing? What about the deliberate lies? The links to Exxon-Mobile?

I guess it is safe to say that if you are an idiot like me and want to keep up with what Teatree, Bradford and others are saying here, you really should read this book: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

After that, you can pretend to be an expert on the subject.

The nutbars are the only ones left in the AGW camp... apparently

[canuckamuck]

oops I said it twice

Edited February 9, 2010 by canuckamuck

[Johpa]

Don't believe for a minute you've got anything in common with "many of the people posting here". Most have earned respect with years of contribution. Your self confessed idiocy is only matched by your sarcasm.

Crikey, a few posters have earned some respect, but most are blabbering fools wallowing in the good life and cheap sex that they could never obtain back home, bad-mouthing the locals as they chug down another beer amongst their mates in yet another round of verbal circle jerking at the local ex-pat drinking establishment whilst watching their home country football or rugby games. This thread offers prime examples of "self-confessed" idiocy and my post contains not one iota of sarcasm.

[NedKelly]

I wonder what the planet is going to be like in another 50 years ......I wont be here to see it but the way its going now I am happy not to be here - but I am sad for my kids that the planet we leave them is going to be in a very sad declining state largely from our own doing. Ya dont have to be a scientist to understand this point.

[senshusband]

I wonder what the planet is going to be like in another 50 years ......I wont be here to see it but the way its going now I am happy not to be here - but I am sad for my kids that the planet we leave them is going to be in a very sad declining state largely from our own doing. Ya dont have to be a scientist to understand this point.

I agree. Trying to stay on topic, just think about the effects of a major nuclear explosion anywhere in the world. With more and more plants being constructed in various parts of the world, its bound to happen. I hate to think that, but this world is being run by humans. We need wood products, but will the replacement trees grow at a rate that sustains the environment and keeps a balance? But ya know something, the rice production could also be affected by too much rain also.

[ironhut]

It is clear that you really know this book well: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Maybe you wrote one of the chapters.

I am so stupid (total idiot) that I feel comfortable over here. When you talk it makes sense.

But I wonder if any person will actually talk about the subject of the thread.

Oh, I forgot (happens a lot). In the book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, it says you should attempt to turn any post related to global warming into a false debate to create doubt, even though there is no doubt.

There I go again, spilling the beans. I am so freaking stupid.

I should not have said "there is no doubt." The last thing we want to do is to start telling the truth (I think that is in chapter six of the book).

As simple as it is, I am not sure I am supposed to reveal global warming denier strategy here.

Is it OK to tell people what you are doing? What about the deliberate lies? The links to Exxon-Mobile?

I guess it is safe to say that if you are an idiot like me and want to keep up with what Teatree, Bradford and others are saying here, you really should read this book: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

After that, you can pretend to be an expert on the subject.

Dude, you've confused the hel_l out of me. I think you may have out-kicked your coverage with your twisted humor. Nothing is apparent as who knows whether you're a GW fanatic or a doubter. Guess it doesn't matter as many in this thread are nutjobs without a basis for qualified posting on the subject. Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time on here.

[Spee]

but I am sad for my kids that the planet we leave them is going to be in a very sad declining state largely from our own doing. Ya dont have to be a scientist to understand this point.

"Ya dont have to be a scientist to understand" basic common sense either. The land mass on Earth is less than 3% occupied. The hysteria about man's impact on anything due to there being too many of us is ......... well ......... hysteria.

Are there localized issues with pollution and contamination? Sure, undoubtedly. Are there rampant colossal permanent global damages caused by lil' ol' us? Of course not.

For chrissakes, because of the enviro-wacko nut cases, there is more planted forest acreage in the US than at any time in history. If one would believe the nut cases' arguments, their forcing people to plant all these extra trees is causing serious harm because it has upset the original natural ecosystems where there were never any trees before mankinds' interference.

As one with a physics degree who watched the Feynman lectures as part of undergrad studies, the above poster who referenced Dr. Feynman couldn't be more right on. The absence of scientific method and academic integrity in the whole global warming wacko movement has been overwhelming. It is only natural that the house of cards must necessarily cave in on itself.

Back to Thailand, if there is anything related to climate causing problems with Thailand's farming and rice production, it is the same thing that plagues farmers all over the world. Namely, there is sometimes not enough water during the growing season and too much water during the harvesting seasons. Our mango crop is a case in point. Last autumn's mango crop was wiped out by too much rain and high wind, basically knocking the growing fruit off the tree before it could mature. This spring's crop has had a wonderful growing season and it looks like we will have a bumper crop. So-called global warming or mankinds' supposed impact on the climate have had absolutely nothing to do with either.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Spee

[RickBradford]

In the past, a warmer planet has been associated with progress for humanity; cold periods with a contraction of activity.

For example, during the Medieval Warm Period (which AGW "scientists" tried to airbrush out of the record, despite contemporary written evidence) the Vikings colonized Greenland, there was a great economic flourishing in Europe (all those Gothic cathedrals were built) and supposedly vineyards were planted in the north of England.

Later came the Little Ice Age, which cut European food production by 15-20% (shorter growing season) bringing poor nutrition, famine, social unrest, and deaths by the millions.

Generally, then, humanity does better when it's warmer (as do other animals and plants).

Locally, the effects vary. Thailand, being warm enough already, probably doesn't need any extra heat, so the important thing, as pointed out above, is rainfall patterns, and I don't believe any credible scientist would claim to be able to predict how they might change in future, whether the earth warms up or not.

Will there be more rain, or less? Will it arrive in the right quantities at the right times? These are questions that farmers have been battling with since the dawn of agriculture because, as we all know, the climate does naturally change.

EDIT: Anyone who is seriously interested in how all this came about, might like to read an article just published by Jerome Ravetz, in which he discusses "post-normal science", that is, science which is complex and diverse, and which cannot be repeated and verified in multiple laboratories. Thus he suggest ways that well-meaning and competent scientists gradually morphed a concern about human impact on the environment into a stance of unchallengeable AGW.

It's quite a long and serious article, so perhaps only for the genuinely interested.

Edited February 10, 2010 by RickBradford

[canuckamuck]

Rick that is an excellent and very balanced article and I am glad I took the time to read it.

I like the parallel of how the printing press brought the end of the dark ages, as similarly the blogosphere has become a safety net in exposing agenda driven science.

I suppose we can see the internet as having the potential of creating a more true democracy than has yet existed. These are fascinating times to be alive.

here is the article's conclusion

A distinguished scholar, Sheila Jasanoff, has called for a culture of humility among scientists, itself a radical move towards a vision of a non-violent science. Scientists who have been forced to work on the blogosphere have had the invaluable experience of exclusion and oppression; that could make it easier for them to accept that something is seriously wrong and then to engage in the challenging moral adventures of dealing with uncertainty and ignorance. The new technologies of communications are revolutionising knowledge and power in many areas. The extended peer community of science on the blogosphere will be playing its part in that process. Let dialogue commence!

[lannarebirth]

In the past, a warmer planet has been associated with progress for humanity; cold periods with a contraction of activity.

For example, during the Medieval Warm Period (which AGW "scientists" tried to airbrush out of the record, despite contemporary written evidence) the Vikings colonized Greenland, there was a great economic flourishing in Europe (all those Gothic cathedrals were built) and supposedly vineyards were planted in the north of England.

Later came the Little Ice Age, which cut European food production by 15-20% (shorter growing season) bringing poor nutrition, famine, social unrest, and deaths by the millions.

Generally, then, humanity does better when it's warmer (as do other animals and plants).

Locally, the effects vary. Thailand, being warm enough already, probably doesn't need any extra heat, so the important thing, as pointed out above, is rainfall patterns, and I don't believe any credible scientist would claim to be able to predict how they might change in future, whether the earth warms up or not.

Will there be more rain, or less? Will it arrive in the right quantities at the right times? These are questions that farmers have been battling with since the dawn of agriculture because, as we all know, the climate does naturally change.

EDIT: Anyone who is seriously interested in how all this came about, might like to read an article just published by Jerome Ravetz, in which he discusses "post-normal science", that is, science which is complex and diverse, and which cannot be repeated and verified in multiple laboratories. Thus he suggest ways that well-meaning and competent scientists gradually morphed a concern about human impact on the environment into a stance of unchallengeable AGW.

It's quite a long and serious article, so perhaps only for the genuinely interested.

In a similar vein, I recommend Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics", wherin he describes the pressures on scientists to accept theories that are popular and fundable rather than retain their objectivism and commitment to experimental confirmation.

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

[mridiot]

It is clear that you really know this book well: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Maybe you wrote one of the chapters.

I am so stupid (total idiot) that I feel comfortable over here. When you talk it makes sense.

But I wonder if any person will actually talk about the subject of the thread.

Oh, I forgot (happens a lot). In the book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, it says you should attempt to turn any post related to global warming into a false debate to create doubt, even though there is no doubt.

There I go again, spilling the beans. I am so freaking stupid.

I should not have said "there is no doubt." The last thing we want to do is to start telling the truth (I think that is in chapter six of the book).

As simple as it is, I am not sure I am supposed to reveal global warming denier strategy here.

Is it OK to tell people what you are doing? What about the deliberate lies? The links to Exxon-Mobile?

I guess it is safe to say that if you are an idiot like me and want to keep up with what Teatree, Bradford and others are saying here, you really should read this book: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

After that, you can pretend to be an expert on the subject.

Dude, you've confused the hel_l out of me. I think you may have out-kicked your coverage with your twisted humor. Nothing is apparent as who knows whether you're a GW fanatic or a doubter. Guess it doesn't matter as many in this thread are nutjobs without a basis for qualified posting on the subject. Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time on here.

Certainly I am a "nutjob." And like other nutjobs, I feel like it is a conspiracy.

The reason is simple: my ice cream cone is not melting fast enough and it still gets cold in the winter.

I am sure the scientists have no response to that.

I must confess that it is easy being a moron. I recommend it for all those who want to destroy the planet. Just ignore reality.

Oooops........I did it again. I meant to say, help the planet and twist reality.

And read the most important book of our skeptic's club: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Don't worry if you are stupid as hel_l and know nothing about science or global warming or climate change.

The book will teach you what to do and say.

It will teach you how to avoid responding to anything that appears to be real science.

I am getting confused, what is the subject of this thread?

Global warming? Rice? Thailand?

[mridiot]

It is clear that you really know this book well: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Maybe you wrote one of the chapters.

I am so stupid (total idiot) that I feel comfortable over here. When you talk it makes sense.

But I wonder if any person will actually talk about the subject of the thread.

Oh, I forgot (happens a lot). In the book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, it says you should attempt to turn any post related to global warming into a false debate to create doubt, even though there is no doubt.

There I go again, spilling the beans. I am so freaking stupid.

I should not have said "there is no doubt." The last thing we want to do is to start telling the truth (I think that is in chapter six of the book).

As simple as it is, I am not sure I am supposed to reveal global warming denier strategy here.

Is it OK to tell people what you are doing? What about the deliberate lies? The links to Exxon-Mobile?

I guess it is safe to say that if you are an idiot like me and want to keep up with what Teatree, Bradford and others are saying here, you really should read this book: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

After that, you can pretend to be an expert on the subject.

Dude, you've confused the hel_l out of me. I think you may have out-kicked your coverage with your twisted humor. Nothing is apparent as who knows whether you're a GW fanatic or a doubter. Guess it doesn't matter as many in this thread are nutjobs without a basis for qualified posting on the subject. Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time on here.

Certainly I am a "nutjob." And like other nutjobs, I feel like it is a conspiracy.

The reason is simple: my ice cream cone is not melting fast enough and it still gets cold in the winter.

I am sure the scientists have no response to that.

I must confess that it is easy being a moron. I recommend it for all those who want to destroy the planet. Just ignore reality.

Oooops........I did it again. I meant to say, help the planet and twist reality.

And read the most important book of our skeptic's club: The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier.

Don't worry if you are stupid as hel_l and know nothing about science or global warming or climate change.

The book will teach you what to do and say.

It will teach you how to avoid responding to anything that appears to be real science.

I am getting confused, what is the subject of this thread?

Global warming? Rice? Thailand?

[canuckamuck]

Are we being visited by the ghost of JR can't-win-an-argument-so-I'll-spam-you Texas?

[shamus]

Like the new avatar jingthing

[Garry9999]

Now that the Anthropogenic global warming myth as been busted, could someone please inform our world leaders, has they still seem to be going ahead with carbon emission trading schemes.

[Garry9999]

Are we being visited by the ghost of JR can't-win-an-argument-so-I'll-spam-you Texas?

Yes, some suspicious alias names around here.

[catmac]

Are we being visited by the ghost of JR can't-win-an-argument-so-I'll-spam-you Texas?

Yes, some suspicious alias names around here.

Too true!

Even to the point of spouting JR's favorite mantra of us all being in the pay of Exxon-Mobile!

[mridiot]

Now that the Anthropogenic global warming myth as been busted, could someone please inform our world leaders, has they still seem to be going ahead with carbon emission trading schemes.

It wasn't easy, but I manged to convince two of our best skeptics to go to Congress and let them know about the "myth" and "conspiracy."

Here they are:

The one on the left is Mr. Ding. The one on the right is Mr. Dong.

They read our most important book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, from cover to cover.

No need to thank me. I like helping out the cause.

[teatree]

Now that the Anthropogenic global warming myth as been busted, could someone please inform our world leaders, has they still seem to be going ahead with carbon emission trading schemes.

It wasn't easy, but I manged to convince two of our best skeptics to go to Congress and let them know about the "myth" and "conspiracy."

Here they are:

The one on the left is Mr. Ding. The one on the right is Mr. Dong.

They read our most important book, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, from cover to cover.

No need to thank me. I like helping out the cause.

Why do you have to stoop to name calling and insults?

I know its been an awful couple of months for the 'warmers' what with the IPCC losing all credibility but to call people idiots because they don't agree with you just stinks of desperation.

Now that the 'science' behind AGW has been exposed as junk the only option left for the 'warmers' is to attack, insult and stay well away from any debate of the science.

[RickBradford]

There was a very interesting debate on BBC Radio (link probably only good this week) earlier in the week.

The debaters were Philip Stott, a professor emeritus at University of London (skeptic) and Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA).

In contrast to most discussions of this kind, the men debated politely and rationally, and basically came to an agrrement that:

* CO² is a greenhouse gas and we are pouring it into the atmosphere

* The extent of any human effect on climate cannot be predicted with any accuracy. All we can do is to estimate a risk factor

* We should be looking at non fossil-fuel forms of energy

* Science needs to be more open and accountable, and less politicised.

* Scientists should do the science, and leave policy to the politicians.

* The whole IPCC procedure needs revamping

Mike Hulme was honest, polite, rational, well-informed and genuine in his attempt to find a way forward for this important science.

But this wasn't good enough for extreme Warmist zealots.

In a blog run by Tim Lambert (who debates Christopher Monckton tomorrow in Australia), a commenter wrote:

"Mike Hulme is the ultimate example of why we are losing against such tossers as Monckton, Stott et al. The 'offical' face of climate science in the UK is crap. Useless. A waste of space. As much use as a chocolate teapot. The Royal Society should hang their heads in shame, as should the other scientific institutions. The media is to blame as well, but after Hulme's performance, why would they bother talking to a climate scientist ever again?

Apart from the vitriol, note the slant. It's nothing to do with the science, or honesty, or integrity, it's about 'winning' through the use of agit-prop.

"This has to be the most bloody bollocking useless piss-poor performance by a scientist in defence of his life's work I've ever heard. Totally crap. It would have been better to have an empty chair.

There you have the extreme AGW mentality. Forget the science, forget rationality, forget everything except The Cause, in service of which, everything is acceptable except being honest.

Edited February 11, 2010 by RickBradford

[mridiot]

What is the subject of this thread? Because I am so stupid, I am confused.

Are we supposed to be talking about how Thailand's rice production will be impacted by global warming?

Or are we supposed to make that discussion impossible by contining to divert attention away from the subject of the thread?

The skeptics bible, The Idiot's Guide to Becoming a Global Warming Denier, says we should divert attention away from any scientific discussion related to global warming to make it appear as though some debate is taking place.

So, do we continue to divert attention away from the actual subject or not?

[RickBradford]

I think I liked you better as JR....

[canuckamuck]

I think I liked you better as JR....

Yeah but at least this time he's using his real name

[nisakiman]

I think I liked you better as JR....

[RickBradford]

There's an interesting Q&A between Phil Jones of the CRU and the BBC, which is well worth reading.

Both Jones and the BBC have been at the forefront of catastrophic alarmism, so it's instructive to see this piece of psychological negotiation between them (see, we're reasonable balanced folk after all!). It reminds me a bit of two old ladies helping each other across a busy road.

Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

A: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade) Significance

1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes

1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes

1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes

1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

Q: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

A: If the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH [northern hemisphere] and SH [southern hemisphere]) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

[RickBradford]

At the same time, Jones did an interview with Roger Harrabin, the BBC's Environment Analyst, another alarmist trying to negotiate his way out.

Phil Jones, the professor behind the "Climategate" affair, has admitted some of his decades-old weather data was not well enough organised. He said this contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics - a decision he says he regretted.

His [Jones'] colleagues said that keeping a paper trail was not one of Professor Jones' strong points. Professor Jones told BBC News: "There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be," he admitted.

[teatree]

World's Greatest Political Hoax

(By Leonard Evans - He has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.)

Not even 30 inches of snow falling on Washington has discredited claims of "global warming," the belief that human activity is appreciably warming our planet. Of course, a single snowstorm does not disprove global warming. Weather is not the same as climate. But even after a decade of unexpectedly cool temperatures, global-warming alarmists still show no skepticism. Skepticism is a core value of science.

In "1984," George Orwell wrote about Big Brother (government) being so powerful that it can persuade people to believe things contrary to their senses. It even can convince them that two plus two is not equal to four.

Eventually the truth will out. When global warming finally is recognized as the world's greatest political hoax, those discredited will not be the perpetrators.

The perpetrators are politicians and traditional media. After the credibility bubble bursts, the same politicians and media will continue to influence what the public is told. They will effectively claim that they never misled anyone. The fall guy will be science.

Lost in the confusion will be the distinction between science and the scientific community.

The scientific community has largely abandoned science. It has degenerated into little more than just another lobbying group seeking advancement for its members.

The scientific community gets it right when the stakes are unimportant. It effectively opposed such anti-scientific nonsense as creationism. If the religious zealots had won, children would be told that the Old Testament described things that really happened. Not good - but it would do little harm and certainly would not harm the world's economies.

How starkly the vigorous opposition to creationism contrasts with the community's near silence in response to the anti-scientific nonsense coming from the likes of Al Gore. Worse than silence, in all too many cases, the community has been an enthusiastic participant in an orgy of unreason. It has been an orgy lubricated by almost limitless opportunities to grab influence, physical resources and cool cash.

Galileo Galilei, the father of experimental science, was convicted of a crime in 1633 for stating "that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, and it moves." This contradicted the then-prevailing belief, supported by most highly credentialed astronomers of the day. His sentence was house arrest until his death in 1642.

Galileo was treated more leniently than earlier pioneer Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for similar crimes.

Then, it was fear of the unknown that threatened intellectual freedom. Today, it is governments and international bodies. While they do not execute or imprison heretics, they still wield enormous power.

"Climate of Fear. Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" was the headline on a column in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Lindzen writes, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

It is easy to create the illusion of consensus when those who disagree are silenced.

It is not known what the majority of scientists think about global warming, not that it matters all that much. Science is not about counting votes. However, I can offer an anecdotal observation.

I am a scientist, while my wife is a professor of art history. Her colleagues generally think all scientists support Mr. Gore - after all, they have been so informed by such authoritative sources as the New York Times. My fellow doctorate-holding science colleagues generally share my conclusion: The claim that human activity has appreciably warmed our planet is the greatest political hoax ever.

Many specific actions supported by global-warming alarmists are admirable. We ought to pollute less and transfer less wealth to Middle Eastern oil-producing tyrannies. These issues should be addressed on their merits. They have little to do with global temperature.

To do sensible things for irrational reasons just validates irrationality. And who can tell what future horrors will be justified by irrationality?

When the global-warming hoax eventually collapses, the victim will be science. When science suffers, we all suffer.

Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/1...-you-snowed-in/

[canuckamuck]

Thanks teatree, it feels good to see credentialed people putting into their own words the same things we have saying for the last couple of years and were ridiculed and mocked over.

I generally hope that the science community will get a rebirth of scientific conservatism. Agenda driven science is a very real global threat. I see the Copenhagen summit as a 'Bay of Pigs' type scenario where the world was dangerously close to permanently harming national sovereignty. Whoever was behind the email hacks at East Anglia should be awarded Gore and Obama's undeserved Nobel Prizes, for in doing so they may have saved the millions of lives in the third world. A tremdous achievement.

[RickBradford]

. I see the Copenhagen summit as a 'Bay of Pigs' type scenario where the world was dangerously close to permanently harming national sovereignty.

I agree. In Warmist langauge, it was a 'tipping point.'

Whoever was behind the email hacks at East Anglia should be awarded Gore and Obama's undeserved Nobel Prizes, for in doing so they may have saved the millions of lives in the third world. A tremdous achievement.

Absolutely. A hero. But one who faces a very difficult future if ever his/her name is discovered.

To me, the other big element of this is the self-destruction of the mainstream media, which has for years been blindly and desperately pushing AGW mania and has been shoved firmly onto its a*se by the bloggers out there.

To watch organisations such as the BBC, The Guardian, and The Sydney Morning Herald trying to negotiate their way back into credibility is going to be one of the fun stories over the next few months.

[teatree]

Whoever was behind the email hacks at East Anglia should be awarded Gore and Obama's undeserved Nobel Prizes, for in doing so they may have saved the millions of lives in the third world. A tremdous achievement.

Agree that he/she/they deserve our utmost respect for their service to the world.

Although, I suspect that the emails were not actually hacked but rather leaked by someone involved in the 'climate research' who could see from the inside just how dishonestly the IPCC scientists were behaving.