blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100038685/the-best-result-of-the-election-lets-rejoice-that-lib-dem-evan-harris-has-lost-his-seat/

Sorry Ben, I promise to behave more “consenus”-like in the future

…. Ha ha! No I don’t!

Evan, I hear you have a bit of free time coming up?
How about a bit of bed time reading?
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-many-choices-do-we-have.html
or maybe you prefer to dig into some “colourful” scientific facts?
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hotness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/#more-19273
As warned previously Evan, please consider the evidence for yourself, rather than supporters’ rhetoric.

Now Gentle Readers, please observe the behaviour that follows … noting the difference (yourself) between scientific facts and argumental fallacies:

Helloooooooooo Kavafy!
Helloooooooooo Crocoduck!
icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/testimony_of_the_viscount_monckton_of_brenchley_before_congress_may_6_2010/

I also voted for Julian Huppert. As a scientifically literate MP, perhaps he will be able to perform a similar role to that of Evan Harris.

At least with the Hung Parliament, the Lib Dems are likely to have some influence in the formation of any new Government. Which could at least mean Electoral Reform (and hopefully Libel reform, independence for Research funding, and maybe, just maybe, evidence based drug policy.

I think though, we need the Electoral Reform more than anything… I haven’t looked any more into this, but I’ve just read that “if you divide the number of votes each party received by the number of seats they won (as things stand now {I think this was with 2 seats still to announce}), you get these figures:
Conservatives: 35,021
Labour: 33,338
Liberal Democrat: 119,397″

It’s a Friday afternoon, 5pm and time to stop thinking, I’m tired and can’t be bothered to get into it in any detail, but I think somebody is being short changed here.

“Most animal experimentation is not actually experimentation at all, rather data generation by companies having to prove the safety of every ingredient of every product they make for EU registration reasons (LD50s, LC50s, NOECs (No Observed Effect Concentration) etc etc).”

That’s not actually correct. In 2008 only 13% of animal studies undertaken in the UK were for toxicology, and 79% of the toxicology studies were for pharmaceuticals rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/spanimals08.pdf

In the UK the overwhelming majority of animals are used in either basic or applied biological and medical research.

While REACH des require safety data for many chemical to which people might or will be exposed there are exemptions for chemicals produced in small volumes and animal studies are not required if there is already sufficient data available for a particular chemical.

ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/2007_02_reach_in_brief.pdf
ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/pdf/reach_animal_testing.pdf

I wish I could vote for Evan Harris, but unfortunately I live in Cambridge rather than Oxford:-( I do however get to vote for Julian Huppert, a bioscientist who is standing for the LibDems in Cambridge and has a good chance of winning:-)

“Well done Veronica”?? Apart from the fact that stories on the front page of the site she pointed to don’t even support her point, Watts is not an expert and has been debunked many times over.

tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/jump/

or:
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090801100833AA2IxO9
for the story on the YouTube video which Watts tried to have taken down.

23. Brady said,
May 5, 2010 at 10:32 pm

“Evan Harris … he dared to examine the evidence… by climate change denialists.”???
Evan, please try to “dare” a bit harder!
You might like to dare more deeply with some of this recent evidence:
pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/update-to-andy-revkins-question-in-2005-is-most-of-the-observed-warming-over-the-last-50-years-likely-to-have-heen-due-to-the-increase-in-greenhouse-gas-concentrations%e2%80%9d/
Please Evan, try to read the scientific references yourself and maybe not listen, exclusively at least, to just your advisors of the “green persuasion”. A list of the classic (think: 2500 year old, Protagoras) argumental fallacies by your bedside would probably come in handy too
Evan ” …a clear thinker on the role of scientific advisors and evidence on policy”?
Reality check Evan:
rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/reality-check.html
Reality check Evan:
web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/4/27_Nails_in_the_Global_Warming_Coffin.html
Sorry, am I repeating myself
Well said williamsjk and Veronica. And HungryHobo, you might like to cross check your “marketing campaign” with:
joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
… and there are “problems” with other of your statements too.
Otherwise I can admire your ability (a seemingly rare quality with CAGW theory “supporters”) to understand that name calling should not be a part of any rational argument. Ben please take note!

Anyway, I’m happy to report I just voted for Dr H. Quite apart from all the reasons Ben gives, he is the only MP I’ve ever had who has actually turned up on my doorstep to canvass – and that not even in an election year. I was impressed.