phenwoods

Here you go,

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=climate+change+ze...

You are kidding, right? You've never heard someone use a term like "alarmist", "warmist" or "true believer" applied to those who accept the evidence for AGW?

"Completely apart from that, there is no absolute truth. Nietzsche and Wittgenstein destroyed what remained of that possibility."

How is the statement "there is no absolute truth", not itself an absolute truth?

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

But it is one thing to suggest that a scientist's work might be influenced by who's financing the work. It's quite another to suggest, as this article did, that scientists would delibratly concoct a hoax just to secure more funding.

And if it really were the case that scientists are fabricating scares for a few million pounds, why are thry not also fabricating reasuuring theories to secure funding from those with an interest in maintaining the status quo?

If only there was some organization on the other side that could afford that sort of money. They'd easily be able to get scientists to produce the results they wanted.

From the Stackoverflow blog http://blog.stackoverflow.com, this is an official sister site of Stackoverflow.

Will this mean that HTML/CSS questions will be migrated from Stackoverflow?