Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Even if the theory of AGW was "bollox" as you put it, you wouldn't have the intellectual tools to analyse the evidence either way.
So what you have to say on the subject is worthless, with all the significance of a yapping dog.
Even if the theory of AGW was "bollox" as you put it, you wouldn't have the intellectual tools to analyse the evidence either way.
So what you have to say on the subject is worthless, with all the significance of a yapping dog.
HTH, BIDI
Oh the ironing.
That would be OK for Mr Clarke to say, but not you.
Looks like more and more commentators jumping on the "AGW is bollox" band wagon.
Is this like 'yet another climate scientist faces prosecution'?
Simon Carr is hardly an expert and he has been duped by Richard Lindzen. The evidence in the article consists long-discredited talking points, and at least as reported, some are just plain wrong. DYOR, I CBA.
Comment