What Do We Think About Climate Change

point is that the piece presents itself as a paper yet does not have any of the checks and balances afforded by the review process ensuring the readers of the accuracy of its findings

which are obviously flawed
by focusing on the individual aspects of chemical processes that overall produce effects opposite of what is being reported in the claim the authors of this non-published ( but intended to appear as a published work ) op ed piece are obviously attempting to misguide the reader.

(helps if you have some background in chemistry so you can see through the games)

another reason to check and see where its published
and sure enough

another ultra right wing politically motivated disinformation blog

whole thing smacks of the typical efforts by shadowy people pushing an politically motivated agenda with phony science
its called agnotology

PS
your cut and paste didnt work out to well.
wanna try it again so the rest of us can make heads or tails of it

thanks
B

so much for denying the acidification of the oceans
( walks around the wring with his hands in the air )

 

Boston,

The wrestling, like AGW, is acting....sort of says it all!

....yet many believe it to be true......

 

Times of London: Met Office: we must check 150 years of climate data

More than 150 years of global temperature records are to be re-examined by scientists in an attempt to regain public trust in climate science after revelations about errors and suppression of data.

The Met Office has submitted proposals for the reassessment by an independent panel in a tacit admission that its previous reports have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

Two separate inquiries are being held into allegations that the CRU tried to hide its raw data from critics and that it exaggerated the extent of global warming.

In a document entitled Proposal for a New International Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data, the Met Office says: “We feel it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyse surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organisation.”

Let us see what the outcome of this will be.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7039264.ece

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

 

You do know that GISS provides their own raw data for free? MET isn't the only organization collecting data. Other organizations have collected data through different techniques, in different parts of the world and still come to the same conclusion.

 

MET isn't the only organization tampering with data either. That is what makes it a conspiracy.

 

I am a chemical scientist and to answer your second question. The waters are so muddied by politics I don't believe one damn thing about AGW that I read. Over the last 10 years the internet has made me skeptical of everything. The biggest turn off for me is when I read the completely idiotic statement that "the science is settled".

I doubt that climate scientists know one tenth of how the earths climate really works. Any boob on the street intrinsically knows this. Every time they get rained on when they go to the beach with a sunny weather report its re-enforced. "The science is settled" is an insult to the average guy on the street. That is why AGW is losing ground. It's called common sense. There are many boobs on the street that think man is responsible for global warming but damn few think the science is settled. Only politicians and political hacks would think that we are that stupid. The science might be settled 200 years from now but for god sakes gimme a break, I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning.

Only politicians seek a quick concensus. The very act of politics is to convince ones enemies that you are their savior. Youz guys must be politicial hacks.

 

Oh, Please! Don't even get us started on GISS, the keepers of the satellite data that prefer ground station data every time

Jimbo

 

Excerpted from the SPPI report cited above:

"Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler."

Jimbo

 

Jimbo...it goes from bad to worse.......anything to get their agenda.

 

Yes, a 'boob on the street' might think that short-term weather forecasting has some sort of correlation to long-range climate change predictions. But if you're a scientist, I sincerely hope you know better. They're two different disciplines entirely. And even if they were the same one, you might as well try to tell me that if a statistician can't tell me whether the next flip of a coin will be heads or tails, he can't tell me what the results of a thousand flips will be.

I'll meet you halfway on what you consider common-sense thinking; I agree it's common. That hardly makes it sense, though.

 

I thought this may be worth remembering

 

0.75 to 1.9 meters? I thought my friend Al Gore said 6 meters...or was it 9 meters? I better sell the properties I bought in Wagga hoping they would turn in waterfront soon......Bummer!!!!!

 

Boston, I suppose you refer to the heading on the BLOG I copied and pasted

My dearest Mr B

This is how my own post is titled. Published today, 25 FEB 2010 at 4:17 PM EST...category "unread" place "boatdesign.net"

Some times I think your previous claim that you are 21 must be true.

What I posted is a comment written in a BLOG, not different from this one. What you point at is simply the date it was posted... date that appears automatically in all post in probably all websites. You can see the date my post is published in the heading of it right here. If the owner of this website decides to make the colour of the date green or pink, I have no control over it. You deserve a special mention for finding out that such colour is actualy "silver" congratulations. I will ask the author if they attempted to disguise the fact that this was written in March 2009....(uhuuuuu a ghostly forbidden date) and hope that you don't notice it.

The word that follows "Uncategorised" is the category and if you click on it, it will take you to all the post that are ... well not categorised. The 12 comments are answers to the post, and the tags are search words that would help anyone searching with those words to find the article posted.
Your accusation is false.

I am glad you did notice that not all 12 answers posted were supportive of the article and that a few had something to say against it. The very fact that they are there and that I reproduced them should give you an idea that the author and myself are both genuine and do not mean to decieve anyone at all, yet find fraud and lies to be abhorrent.

I can not see any deception neither in the color of the date nor in anything else. However I can see massive amounts of deception, fraud and crime in the claims that the ocean is "acidifying" or "rising" or any other cow manure of that nature.

PS

I am sorry, I apologise profusely for the use of such disgusting site from such disgusting "ultra right wing" origin. Right wing is baaad, rich is baaad, successful is wrooong, we will all go to hell. Green are good, marijuana is good, poor is good, incompetent is good, mediocre all go to heaven and get to keep their medicare card.
Mea culpa mea culpa...I will now walk on my knees all the way to the national park and plant a row of kangaroo grass for penitence.


May be you can teach me how to post an image, I do click on the IMG button but all I get is a link.
Bummer !!

 

Troy, I must say I expected more from you.

The inaccuracy of weather forecasting is a perfect example of the difficulties faced by those who, lacking a proper functional crystal ball, must rely on the very little they know in order to feed their computer models.

It was only yesterday that we burned people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia to the stake for being witches and wizards. How many perished at the hands of the wise people with the long robes for stating that the earth is not the centre of the universe and that the sun does not go from east to west, and that the earth is not flat and has no edges as stated by the scriptures....? Venture any guesses?

Only a few years ago, the scriptures where the irrefutable source of wisdom, inerrant and indisputable.
Today the new church of climatology states that the science is settled, that AGW is irrefutable, that Al Gore is inerrant and whoever disputes it is anathema and must perish and go unpublished.

Just like predicting the weather for tomorrow is very difficult because we know little about many things, pretending to predict long term changes in climate, and worst, claim to know the origin of such, at this stage unpredictable changes is a big fat joke.
Just like pretending to "know" how much it will rain tomorrow.

 

The warmists love to paste pejorative labels on the realists such as 'denier'. I think we should start calling them WONDERs, WONDER being an acronym for Willfully Obtuse Nutcases Denying Evidence and Reality. Boston can be 'WONDER Boy', and Troy2000 can be 'WONDER full time'.



Jimbo