Comments for The great swindle at http://www.adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.adamsmith.org Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:55:06 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/the-great-swindle-200807241748/#comment-649 One sided? sure! Censorship rules in post modern Science ASI seems faintly undecided on climate policy as it wrecks the economies of Rich Countries See http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4072 and evangelise - Dr Alister McFarquhar Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:02:49 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/the-great-swindle-200807241748/#comment-639 A friend pointed out that the New Scientist printed an opinion piece tilted in favour of the 'complaint' to the Ofcom folk ... I can remember back to when the New Scientist was actually scientific, and confined its 'opinion' pieces to columns like Daedalus who took science-related items to entertaining extremes ... my favourite is still the combining of the 'technology' of "Pop-Rocks" candy (replacing the gas they used with pure compressed Oxygen) and Kendal Mint Cake, to give a high-caloric high-oxygen food for those climbing the higher mountains like Mount Everest ... as Daedalus commented, the only problem was that the resulting tablets were effectively high-explosive ... (grin) ... - Alasdair Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:40:03 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/the-great-swindle-200807241748/#comment-636 A simple equation covers this issue: IPCC = Rent-seekers - Steve Giess Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:35:04 +0100