Pages

2014/07/20

Good Lord - this is unbelievable.

From the Mending fences thread at wuwt:



Monckton of Brenchley says:

Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
Mr Svalgaard will likewise not tempt me to make any replies here. The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.
Both these two have unjustifiably maligned Dr Evans in the most unpleasant and unjustifiable terms. That is a shame.


lsvalgaard says:


Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Mr Eschenbach continues to be entirely unreasonable. I shall not reply to him further.
It seems you have found a willing stooge in the unpleasant ‘Richard D’.

Richard D says:
Monckton of Brenchley says: July 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm
The matter of his conduct is now with my lawyers for their advice and will in due course be drawn to the attention of his university.
__________________________
Excellent

......
and on the blog that does not stop people posting:
....................


lsvalgaard says:

[snip - OK enough of this pissing match, the thread is about mending fences, not bashing heads. Kindly dial it back please, and that's not just Leif, all of you. - Anthony]


Anthony Watts says:


NOTE: Everybody take a time out. I’m closing this thread for awhile because it is just turning into a war of words about other people, not the science at hand.


-------------------


The Brenchleys, Mcintyres, and  Watts of this scene have thrown the "fraud" word about with abandon when they talk of climate scientists and climate research. But when it happens to one of their own then the courts will be used and the scientist's employers will be informed.
It's nice to know free speech is alive and kicking! 

1 comment:

  1. That is what you get when the only thing that unites your political group is being against climate science. And when in doing so you pervert the rules of scientific conduct and are not able use them to make your own "discussions" productive. They are unable to make a coherent somewhat credible alternative.

    Aren't the labels "humour" and "stupidity" too general? They fit to any post on these characters.

    ReplyDelete