You can say anything you want in a peer review study as long as it agrees with the group think. Since the peers are anonymous there is no accountability in the work. It's all done behind the curtain, in secret.
That's what happens when arrogant ELITIST scientists "think" they know more than everyone else. Making BOLD statements based on a preponderance of evidence?
They're more of a problem to human existence than what climate change is. That's what makes it a good thing that they are wrong. The more that they are wrong, the less people will have to tip-toe around the world and actually get something done for themselves and others.
Looks like we are re-living the 60s because of what these people claim is happening.
Not a lot, but then I never did, the Royal Society has always been an old fashioned, dogmatic and totally biased organisation, it has been racist and favours the upper class, rather than true science.
Interesting article, what can I say, eventually the lies always catch up on you. And when you've lied about absolutely everything, upon such a large variety of topics, it's just inevitable.
I'm fine with the Royal Society, I think you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.
You denailists sure like your ad homs. It must be because you have nothing else.
To err is human.
Still more trustworthy than you
Still better than denier blogs
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/21/Snailgate-the-slime-trail-left-by-the-Royal-Society-s-vanishing-credibility
