My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Newsflash: animals killed by climate change | Main | New paper blasts ‘ocean acidification’ theory »

Comments

AcidComments

"Providing actual evidence to support your crap is tiresome is it? I see."

CM

Because it appears it really doesn't matter what evidence is provided. Unless it's from your beloved frauds at 'Unreal Climate.'

You won't except any of it anyway. Unless of course if it comes from unrelible crap sources like Wiki land you seem quite happy to repeat from that!

CM

>>>Because it appears it really doesn't matter what evidence is provided.<<<

Evidence isn't required because it doesn't matter anyway?
Is that really the best you can come up with?

>>>Unless it's from your beloved frauds at 'Unreal Climate.'<<<

No, I keep asking your for sources so I can see for myself whether it's the usual rubbish, or something legitimate.

>>>You won't except any of it anyway.<<<

I suspect you mean 'accept'

>>>Unless of course if it comes from unrelible crap sources like Wiki land you seem quite happy to repeat from that!<<<

Well it should be very easy to dispute what I post from there then. Dispute away. Oh that's right, I'd only require ridiculousness like evidence wouldn't I. How horrific!

CM

"....it’s almost certain by now that January 2010 will also be the globally warmest January on the UAH record - the anomaly will likely surpass 0.70 °C. It may even see the highest (or at least 2nd highest) monthly UAH anomaly since December 1978."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/global-uah-warmest-january-day-on.html

Ian Wishart

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo that weather does indeed now equal climate? :)

You need to read Air Con...

CM

Sorry Ian, but I didn't claim that my quote proved or indicated anything in terms of AGW theory. I'm happy to clarify that it doesn't. But if it was part of a larger trend.....

I don't think I do need to read it, but I will anyway.

The comments to this entry are closed.