No it shows something quite deeply disturbing about the gullability of people such as yourself, and the people who prefer not to think about things too much in as much as their ability to evaluate complex scientific evidence goes. Not one bit of the recent “scandals” place the scientific consensus under question. The Economist’s attitude is a. rather inconsistent, and b. often written by people while not as scientifically illiterate as you who still lack some scientific background to be able to evaluate the facts in an informed manner.

So to repeat: So you’re welcome to your opinion, but please don’t be surprised when people laugh at you and/or treat your gullible credulity with contempt.

Surely you admit that recent events (IPCC errors, climategate, etc) show the science isn’t as robust as we were being told.

Well if you can say that then I can’t take anything you say seriously. The science is robust and the British High Court has confirmed that, along with almost all scientists who are expert in the field.

This article is for you.

Your opinion in #1841 only has credibility in an upside down world where we take your lies and delusions as representing truth, and the corresponding opposing scientific view as some sort of elaborate fiction cooked up by a conspiracy of thousands of people over hundreds of years.

So you’re welcome to your opinion, but please don’t be surprised when people laugh at you and/or treat your gullible credulity with contempt.

Al Gore – a puffed up poseur, purveyor of powerpoint prattle which the British High court judged as propaganda unfit to be shown to schoolchildren as ‘education’.

That is what you said Ken. Quite different to the actual result don’t you think?

I read this stuff for a living Ken. I know what it means. The fundamental point of the film is not disputed and the Court only required guidance to be provided on those particular points.

Don’t forget Ken,

The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact

Sorry, your argument makes no sense. As the judge notes, with the exception of 9 examples of over-reach (not the out and out lies of which you and Tamas are fond by the way but something milder, unlike your misinformation subject to the rule of law), the basis of the film is based on sound scientific knowledge.

What was your point again? I think you manifestly failed to make it, because as usual your point was not supported by the evidence.

“It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website”

In other words to warn children that this is political propaganda – a Guidance Note must be included in the pack.

“the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…” – precisely my lud……..

My lud is obviously trying to protect the immature and impressionable minds of children from ‘influencing their opinions’ with a Guidance Note which will cleanse the propaganda into a more benign form to ’stimulate children into discussion of global warming and climate change’.

I rest my case…

Ken, Way to go shooting yourself in the foot (or was it your head) again. It would appear the judgement is specifically worded to avoid the politicisation of climate change. Seeing as one of your unstated goals is to use a bit of dog whistle politics to attempt to politicise what is a scientific issue, I would have thought that you would have been dead against this judgement.

But on the other hand, if there’s a way to lie about and misrepresent its contents to serve your political goal (so long as your audience is sufficiently gullible) you’ll do it, no matter how inconsistent and divorced from reality it leaves your argument.

You’re being torn apart by a pack of hungry wolves here Ken, I’d give up before you disappear in a puff of logic.

OK, get a load of this:
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme…I am satisfied that, in order to establish and confirm that the purpose of sending the films to schools is not so as to “influence the opinions of children” (paragraph 7 above) but so as to “stimulate children into discussing climate change and global warming in school classes” (paragraph 6 above) a Guidance Note must be incorporated into the pack, and that it is not sufficient simply to have the facility to cross-refer to it on an educational website.

See the rest here .

Cigar store Indians, I think they are sometimes called. I know what you are referring to and as it is a representation of Native American in a particularly stereotyped manner, I think using it as a reference is fraught with danger. But that’s just me.