Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-20-Speech-3-252"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-01-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Outcome of the Copenhagen Summit on climate change (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100120.15.3-252"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-01-20-Speech-3-2532
lpv:speaker	lp:Adam Gierek2
lpv:spokenAs	member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Unia Pracy (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, in relation to the critical remarks of scientists concerning the reliability of the IPCC’s conclusions and the revelation of falsification of data, and this undoubtedly influenced the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, I asked the Commission about the possibility of conducting research to verify the disputed findings. In his answer, Mr Dimas said: ‘the IPCC assessment is the expression of a consensus reached by thousands of scientists.’ I ask, therefore, are results in science decided by consensus, and are scientific conclusions the result of voting? Concerning Climategate, the Commissioner said: ‘the European Commission’s position is that it does not affect the obvious and justified conclusions contained in the IPCC report.’ I ask, therefore, what kind of conclusions come from falsified data? I think we need impartial research to verify the effects of CO . Without scientific credibility, another disaster will be waiting for us in Mexico."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph