tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post8900079702960801904..comments2024-02-06T09:51:14.027+01:00Comments on Jules' klimaatblog: The inconsistency in the response of the Klimatosoof’s Theo Richel to the Open Letter of 55 Dutch Scientistsjuleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08149218335071592373noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-45742346397505280492010-02-20T13:34:13.774+01:002010-02-20T13:34:13.774+01:00If you look at the papers being published on clima...If you look at the papers being published on climate change in the last decade, there is an exponential increase in ones dealing with environmental and biological effects (WG II stuff). The biologists and civil engineers are just sinking their teeth into this issue, which is why the rending of garments about WGII is silly and immature. Essentially WGII is now where WGI was ten years ago.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1847816429050818607.post-41903199767837204192010-02-13T18:43:47.618+01:002010-02-13T18:43:47.618+01:00The internal inconsistencies of the deniosphere in...The internal inconsistencies of the deniosphere in a nutshell.<br /><br />It's like Monckton approvingly (but wrongly) quoting Pinker, while at the same time attacking just about all other scientists. Or people lamenting that 'skeptics' are kept out of the scientific journals, and then later publish a list of 450 papers that supposedly are 'skeptic'.<br /><br />It would have been hilarious, if not for the fact that so many people actually lend credibility to these nutcases, and the implications.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.com