Verbal

And it's terrible when that happens. But how did the private system help?

And your scientific qualifications for such a pronouncement on high are? Please give examples from reputable journals

Again, this avoids addressing the issue. You were claiming that 'bad science' was intrinsic to the methods themselves - because scientists didn't look at the overall, or take into account 'all the variables'. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works that I really want to know how you can define it as 'bad'.

And so much more besides. The NHS is often treated like a dumping ground by the private health 'system' when they commit yet another **** up. Of course the NHS is hardly invulnerable to botching things sometimes, but when did you last see a local hospital palming off its mistakes on BUPA?

I'm asking because I think Phil will eventually get around to a direct answer rather than tiptoeing round the fringes. If he were you (which no one should be, heaven forbid; you're 'unique'), I wouldn't bother.

Xbox. Easier to spell.

Phil. Science. Bad. Why?

What a dreadful thought. I think we're all agreed that that's what no one wants.

Answer the question!! Tell us how the methodology in climate science is 'bad'

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.