Subscribe via RSSCover-More, you drink and its cover-less..
A recent article in the Washington Times demonstrates the lengths to which those who 'believe' in global warming (alarmists) in the scientific community have to go to silence those practicing solid science which happens to go against their beliefs.
The core point being this:
'The IPCC report argued that temperatures rose one degree Celsius over
the course of a century as a direct result of man-made carbon-dioxide
emissions. This tiny change in temperature was calculated through the
use of an "adjusted" set of global surface-temperature readings. Mr.
McKitrick found that factors unrelated to global climate contaminated
this data set, resulting in a higher temperature reading. He showed a
statistically significant correlation between the change in temperature
readings and socioeconomic indicators. It makes sense, for example,
that replacing trees and forests with concrete and glass skyscrapers
might contribute to the .01 degree annual increase in local temperature
readings. This "urban heat island" effect would not be present in
readings taken outside the asphalt jungle.
'
What is wrong with this picture? Answer nothing really - except it blows a hole right through the middle of the IPCC report and goes right against the Warmest agenda.
I just really wish more people in the scientific community would come clean and stand up against this peer bullying - the science is getting lost behind all the egos..
Follow us on Facebook, click here!
Comments left
- Andrew said:
Hi Keith, You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and come across as a completely ignorant idiot. There are two majors problems with you. Firstly you think that Today Tonight is a reputable journalism forum that gives you unbiased reporting. Was this guy really just sitting on the back of a ute before an unknown person got in and drove away? Secondly you know nothing about insurance. Allow me to retort to your 4 recommendations. 1) Your ignorance is showcased by you not realising that all policies have a clause about being drunk. Each case is dealt with individually, further showing that TT only reported certain aspects of the story. 2) Travel insurance companies clearly define what the exceptions are to their cover. 3) Your local MPs have nothing to do with insurance policies so why would I waste their time? 4) If you knew anything about PR you would know that there is no such thing as bad PR.
Go back to the couch, im presuming youre in a singlet and tracksuit pants, and continue to pretend you know anything about anything. Also, get a copy of the dictionary and learn how to spell properly.
Kind regards,
AndrewON Thu, 25 Feb 10, 12:02am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
Hi Andrew,
See the link http://www.productreview.com.au/showitem.php?item_id=20236 - Cover-More has been playing hard ball; which to be fair they are entitled to do; but in this case I think they have overstepped the line.
Also there is such a thing as bad PR, my other half is a marketing researcher and PR specialist - anybody remember the Ratners 'a M&S prawn sandwich would last longer than our jewelery' speech at their AGM; and that is quoted from memory!
The problem with this particular case is that the individual concerned was a third party to another person's actions, and they still used the 'had drunk' clause to get out paying - that's the real problem here. Yes, fair cop if you had one to many and fell down and hurt yourself; not a fair cop if someone injures you and you had no part in causing that injury.
As regarding local PM's - the government sets the regulatory and licensing environment in which insurance companies operate. So pressure applied there could prevent this in future.
Let me repeat, I'm not against business making money; but there are times when a line is crossed and action needs to be taken to re-enforce that line for the good of all. This is looking like one of those times.ON Thu, 25 Feb 10, 12:02am probably from Australia Reply to this comment
- Eco Guy said:
- Covermore Travel Insurance said:
Does single trip insurance cover local travel? If I buy single trip insurance for a trip from the London, UK to Melbourne, Australia, does the policy cover me for additional local flights within Australia during the course of the holiday? Like a flight to Sydney and back to Melbourne? Or is the missed/delayed departure policy usually for the flight entering Australia and the flight leaving Australia only.
ON Thu, 21 Oct 10, 11:42pm probably from Philippines Reply to this comment
- Covermore Travel Insurance said:
need insurance? follow this link www.travelinsure.com.au
ON Thu, 21 Oct 10, 11:59pm probably from Philippines Reply to this comment
- Covermore Travel Insurance said:
Got a question or comment about this?
Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.