Showing posts with label Humour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humour. Show all posts
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
JAWS: A Movie Review
From Denial Depot:
Synopsis
A group of so-called government funded "experts" whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. The heroes of this tale are the local major and business leaders who lead a successful audit of the alarmist claims and by doing so manage to delay action long enough that the beach remains open. In the end it turns out a shark has been eating people.
Synopsis
A group of so-called government funded "experts" whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution. The heroes of this tale are the local major and business leaders who lead a successful audit of the alarmist claims and by doing so manage to delay action long enough that the beach remains open. In the end it turns out a shark has been eating people.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Cap & Trade, Carbon Tax Probably Dead for this Year
And if the Republicans get in power in November, the next two years don't look good either...
Friday, June 18, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Climate Deniers Don't Follow Their Own Rules - Hilarious!
From Real Climate:
The Institute of Physics (IoP) recently made a splash in the media through a statement about the implications of the e-mails stolen in the CRU hack. A couple of articles in the Guardian report how this statement was submitted to an inquiry into the CRU hack and provide some background.
The statement calls for increased transparency, and expresses concerns about the public confidence in science if the transparency is absent. The IoP statement, however, fails to note that the issue of transparency is far more generally applicable than just to mainstream climate science. It should also involve the critics of climate change, as noted by New Scientist.
Another question arises is whether the IoP follows its own recommendations in its own publications?
The statement of the IoP was made on the behalf of its 36000 members, but as a member of IoP myself, this came as a surprise. According to the Guardian, there was only a small group of people behind this, and other IoP members were obviously not very impressed. The IoP did, however, make a second statement after their initial one was misrepresented by the climate-change deniers (there is some confusion about versions).
The irony of this affair is that the IoP will not disclose who were responsible for the original statement, thus not living up to the standards they set for others.
Furthermore, it’s a paradox that the IoP based the statement on stolen private e-mail exchanges, while putting disclaimers about confidentiality, especially as it asks people to delete any e-mail before they go astray:
"This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it…"
As The Guardian points out, there's good reason why the IoP didn't want the whole mess released - the statement requesting transparency AND the questions given to the BBC to try to trap Phil Jones came not from the IoP's members, but from a front group for the Oil Companies...
The Guardian's Article
Just too Funny...
.
.
The Institute of Physics (IoP) recently made a splash in the media through a statement about the implications of the e-mails stolen in the CRU hack. A couple of articles in the Guardian report how this statement was submitted to an inquiry into the CRU hack and provide some background.
The statement calls for increased transparency, and expresses concerns about the public confidence in science if the transparency is absent. The IoP statement, however, fails to note that the issue of transparency is far more generally applicable than just to mainstream climate science. It should also involve the critics of climate change, as noted by New Scientist.
Another question arises is whether the IoP follows its own recommendations in its own publications?
The statement of the IoP was made on the behalf of its 36000 members, but as a member of IoP myself, this came as a surprise. According to the Guardian, there was only a small group of people behind this, and other IoP members were obviously not very impressed. The IoP did, however, make a second statement after their initial one was misrepresented by the climate-change deniers (there is some confusion about versions).
The irony of this affair is that the IoP will not disclose who were responsible for the original statement, thus not living up to the standards they set for others.
Furthermore, it’s a paradox that the IoP based the statement on stolen private e-mail exchanges, while putting disclaimers about confidentiality, especially as it asks people to delete any e-mail before they go astray:
"This email (and attachments) are confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender, delete any copies and do not take action in reliance on it…"
As The Guardian points out, there's good reason why the IoP didn't want the whole mess released - the statement requesting transparency AND the questions given to the BBC to try to trap Phil Jones came not from the IoP's members, but from a front group for the Oil Companies...
The Guardian's Article
Just too Funny...
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
