Verbal

As Tim say, WHAT?? But let me get this straight: your evidence for 'bad science' is an article by arch nutjob Christopher Brooker??!! In the immortal txtspk: FFS! You do realise that the CRU was cleared of scientific malpractice by an official investigation led by Lord Oxburgh (former chairman of Shell). Get a grip Phil, you're better than this.

OK so we're on Crusader history now, are we? So tell me: was 1272 when they re-took the 'jewel in the crown' Jerusalem? As I said, Saladin won. Now Phil, if you don't answer the bad science question I will hunt you down.

I agree, especially with your last point. Labour could be back in the driving seat in a year. Isn't prediction fun!

I won't. Socialist revolution is a serious business. Viva la pasta!

Now other LibDem ministers have been caught doing a Vince. I'm revising my estimate down. I'll give this useless shower six months. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/22/more-lib-dem-ministers-recorded

In your dreams Tory boy. Even with a less than dynamic leader, Labour's recovery is pretty astonishing.

No **** Sherlock

And can Phil PLEASE answer my bad science question? Why are the deniers all hiding under their beds?

I was being kind about NOT spelling wastys as wasties - but I defer to the blue corner on this. Waste it is. And I don't know why Labour didn't go after them - I wish they had. So won't you advocate going after them now?

I'm even more astonished then by your 'bad science' nonsense. PLEASE explain why the methodology of climatology is 'bad'.

This is very funny. Now back to the thread...

Origins and meaning are not the same thing, and even you would know that. Your understanding of the history of the Crusades is clearly based on sweet FA - you do know that Saladin won, I hope. Anyway, back to Phil's bad science... Still waiting

Quite - not least the idea that the Christians were fighting barbarians - in which case, at that time, they would have been committing collective suicide! Anyway, back to DP's avoidance of any defence whatsoever of his claim about 'bad science'...

Can we please have a filter that stops people posting ravings from the Daily Dumbass?

You're doing it again! Phil, I am personally sending you to the naughty step until you can provide evidence of what you call 'bad science'. You can't just run out, yell, 'bad science' and run away again. Spell out your qualifications for rubbishing the methodology of climate research, or quote those scientists, published in respected journals, who do and why. By the way, the clue that you have no scientific qualifications to make such a declaration of bad science is your bizarre claim that science, to be good, has to look at all the variables and from all possible ways. Actually, a lot of science proceeds in the opposite direction, by trying to isolate variables and study them. That, small step by small step, is how progress is made. It is the accumulation of these small steps that makes the results of climatology so worrying - aside from the evidence around the world of global warming.

It doesn't make any sense because he's weirdly fixated by what he calls the 'theory of the survival of the fittest' - which isn't a theory at all but the incoherent and racist ramblings of a Victorian sociologist. There is no iron law that says that war will result. And besides, we have been having scares about human numbers since Thomas Malthus in the late eighteenth century, when the world population was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

I hesitate to say this in case you throw your wheelchair at me, but it's 'hypocrisy', dearest. On that subject, you waltzed away from my main point. Should the nasty wastys be going after the notorious defence contractors who inflate their charges to the MoD by billions, the drug companies who do the same, the same with the NHS, the PFI companies who sit on wildly favourable contracts and then mysteriously fail to deliver,having gouged millions from PFI (an invention of Thatch-Major, by the way). THIS is surely just as important - if not more so - as firing nurses, care workers, OAP homes, education, etc, etc. But are the nasty wastys doing it? Are they ****. So maybe it's a good idea to spell hypocrisy correctly, because the cap fits the libcons perfectly.

You can't simply declare something 'bad science' - unless you either are a scientist of some standing (are you? If so, what are your qualifications? And what is it about the results or the methodology that you find 'bad'?); or you can quote respected scientists' contrary studies (not ravings, opinion etc) published in respected journals. Frankly, internet warriors declaring a broad scientific consensus as 'bad science' simply, I strongly suspect, because you don't like the results is a bit, well, bad. And since you're so certain of this, what exactly is 'incomplete'?

No, nothing matters, it's all hopeless, we give up.

Yes, I agree, you are quite confused. 'Taxing the ****' out of vodafone means their merely paying approximately the same proportion of taxes as other companies, including other telecoms, that don't resort to such dubious methods to avoid their responsibilities. And the 'private v public' division you push with such enthusiasm places your argument in about 1955. Today, some very powerful, very large companies make their fortunes from taxation - notably PFI companies, extraordinarily corrupt defence contractors like BAE Systems, drugs companies supplying the NHS at exorbitant cost, etc etc. And no, the foundation stone of socialism was never 'fairness' - what a piece of **** nonsense that has always been, and continues to be as it's used with tiresome regularity by Cleggeron. A central pillar of socialism and social democracy has been social justice - a concept whose meaning has been contested certainly, but at least makes sense in its various iterations by political/legal philosophers like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, etc.

I'd agree with that. British private hospitals have a poor reputation for incompetence, laziness and gouging their charges. The only people I've met who use them and actually boast about it are, quite frankly, either as thick as they come or have an infinite capacity for self-delusion....or both. Private facilities in NHS hospitals - as morally dubious as that might be - are far,far better.

Prospects for the coalition are excellent. I give them a year, tops.

There is just something so downright odd about a climate change sceptic coming from New Orleans - the Atlantis de nos jours.

Post of the day. You should ask to have this on your tombstone.

I can't really argue with feelings and impressions and looking out the window. Science doesn't operate like that. Population is important for sure. The two are heavily linked. But atmospheric chemists are merely studying and reporting on the change to the climate not the political imperatives necessary to fix it.