Verbal

Like you, I don't have any. That's rather my point. Unless you quote actual scientists, publishing in respected journals, it's all a bit too easy and really quite crap to say that climate science is 'bad science'. So to repeat my question: what is it about the methodology of climate science that renders it 'bad'? Phil won't answer, so maybe you will. As you see, I am ever hopeful.

Exactly. The signs of a stitch up here, in favour yet again of the Murdoch mafia, are painfully obvious.

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?