SR,

There have been plenty of climate change activists doctoring research to get pre determined results, just look at JCU.

SR quotes extensively from Wikipedia to try to bolster his preconceived bias against Lomborg. He ends one such quote as follows...

"....Not providing specific statements on actual errors.

End quote."

The very next sentence (THE VERY NET SENTENCE) in that Wikipedia article goes on....

"The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. "

INVALID.

Did SR stop reading the Wikipedia article when he got to the parts he liked or did he read and then try to hide the parts that disproved his contentions and caused his entire argument to collapse? A knave or a fool? Not a palatable choice for poor old SR.

Anyway, the findings by the DCSD against Lomborg weren't retested and therefore the decision that they are invalid remains in place.

Still I've wasted enough time on SR, a dill for the ages.

Here's an interesting take..."The Treasury has been warned that plastic bag bans are contributing to a weaker economy, reportedly prompting shoppers to consume less and delay purchases because they're unable to carry groceries." (http://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6051364599001)

Politicians always fail to remember the law of unintended consequences. They posture about saving the planet with bag bans, straw bans, CO2 taxes etc thinking this posturing is consequence-free. But it always has real world effects and generally adverse effects. Then the pollies are nowhere to be found.

Dear mhaze,

Here I was thinking you were deliberately obfuscating but it turns our you might just be thick.

The word they used was invalid not “INCORRECT” nor “IN ERROR”.

They considered it invalid because of procedural matters not because of error of fact.

Look, it is like when you get booked for speeding but the policeman forgets to put the date on the ticket.

There is no doubt that you were speeding, no doubt the radar was functioning as it should have, but because the proper procedures were not fully carried out to the letter of the law the ticket is ruled by the court to be INVALID.

It would help enormously if you would engage your brain on occasions rather than walk lockstep with your ideology.

SR,

You are crashing and burning on this one. The DCSD got caught doing pretty much what BL had done, and instead of revising their report chose to sulk. If there were just procedural errors it would have been easy to fix.

"You are crashing and burning on this one. "

We all know that...I think he does too. But we are now at the point where SR is making stuff up or twisting facts beyond breaking point in order to salvage what he considers some self-respect.

We always end up here as regards SR. My recent favourite was when he completely mixed up Tim and Peter Costello and then tried to blame someone else for his error.

Just for the sake of it I should point out that the DDCD report was found to be invalid BECAUSE it was incorrect and in error. For example DDCD was castigated for claiming Lomborg made errors and then failing to specify those supposed errors.

The whole point of the DDCD and similar reports was not to prove Lomborg in error but to give some semblance of cover for dills like SR to declare him wrong, not because he is wrong but they just can't bring themselves to accept that he's right.

That's how the whole AGW scare maintains itself.

SR you must be amused by the claims of the science deniers that you have got it wrong
Tomorrow our time 47 degrees in our money is forecast for parts of Europe that just do not see such temperatures