Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
What I find particularly annoying is that initially, people here accepted his conclusions at face value and tried to find excuses for the dramatic declines he asserts.

What I find annoying is that I wasted several irreplacable minutes of my life taking this report somewhat seriously, until finding out that it was the handiwork of a well-known fraud.

After that, Jerome's question has no further interest. What remains of interest is making obvious also to the statistically non-proficient reader the dishonest wrongness of Hughes' conclusions.

by mustakissa on Tue Jan 1st, 2013 at 09:44:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, I should have made it clearer that the REF (which I flagged in the subject line of my initial comment) was an astroturf organization, and indeed, I was looking for debunking to fight the propaganda.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 12:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. What would be needed here would be something like Skeptical Science for climatology.

Actually it's amazing how omnivorous anti-science fraudsters are: tobacco, climate, wind power, radiation hazard... as long as there is a business model in it. Nigel Lawson's operation being a case in point.

by mustakissa on Wed Jan 2nd, 2013 at 03:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series