Long term readers will already be aware of Peter Griffin, the PR patsy who helps run the Royal Society's propaganda wing, the Science Media Centre.
Apparently stung by my previous criticisms, young Peter tried to be an investigative journalist to match Joanne Nova's sterling work tallying up the $79 billion snoutfest for climate scientists and their PR hangers on (like the Science Media Centre), except in this case Peter and his mate Gareth Renowden reckoned they'd stumbled on a big story: big oil funds climate lobbyists.
What a surprise, like that story hasn't been broken a million times before. However, the thing that makes me laugh is that in their battle to spin about the evils of climate PR propaganda, Peter and Gareth approvingly hang their story on the work of the "US Center for Public Integrity", exposed in Air Con as funded handsomely by drugs legalization kingpin and carbon investor George Soros.
I mean, puhleeeaze!
Soros is bankrolling virtually every global warming belief initiative that moves because he knows his children will become trillionaires off the carbon trading derivatives market and UN contracts the Soros group will win.
Yet another reason for the media to laugh at the Science Media Centre.
Interesting book review:
http://www.icemon.org/only-creationists-and-science-illiterates-will-own-this.html
Who wrote it? Who is ICEMON?
Posted by: peter | January 15, 2010 at 09:24 PM
CM,
How about you stick to being a piss take poster. Don't even go or even cited scientific concepts because you don't understand what they are, since you're just repeating what you have seen on the net. Yep, you're a repeater like a Herald reporter.
CM said...
As is his application of Kirchoff's Law of Radiation.
What you know about Kirchoff's law? Do you know what it is or is it something you read on the net? Reading something on the net is not the same thing as knowing what it is.
CM said...
The paper was also published in an obscure Hungarian meteorological journal.
Now, I see idiots like you all the time, quoting the obscurity of a journal , without knowing or realizing that the reputation of the journal itself is irrelevant. The content of the articles that are being published in a journal are more important that the journal itself. I have commented on this issue before chrtistmas (you should find that post here), but you seemed to be suffering from amnesia, since you can't remember that message of mine.
Einstein published his scientific papers in Annalen der Physik which was obscure at the time. Look what happened? His publications revolutionized physics which lead to a Nobel Prize for him. Another example was the work of Dr. Black, Dr. Scholes and Dr. Merton , which is known as Black-Scholes model in finance. They published their paper in an obscure journal Journal of Political Economy . Their paper was revolutionary, because they applied physics principles (heat-flow/heat-diffusion) into modeling economic/finance concepts as asset pricing. They shared the 1997 Economic Nobel Prize for their work.
Stop being obsessed with the reputation of the journal, rather you should concentrate on the contents of the submitted articles. This obsession comes from people who don't read peer review articles, especially if what they read are not diverse. I mean they only read specific journal and not a range of journals from wider disciplines.
Don't make any stupid comment about topics/concepts that you have no clue about.
Posted by: Falafulu Fisi | January 17, 2010 at 09:08 AM
It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly.What do you think?
Posted by: air jordans | July 31, 2010 at 03:52 PM