explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
What does BWT mean ?
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
What does BWT mean ?
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,691
- Reactions
- 10,300
BWT means
Although he said BTW.
Which I reckon means
"by the way".
Although it could mean
gg
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Thanks gg., always the saviour,
By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything. Bas puts it up and he wont read them, if he did objectively in my view he would start to see it all.
I know in my career we used anachronims all the time then at Officers college we were not allowed. They said, "they are weeds in sentences". So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.
All I know is that it has not rained in this region since October and the water carters cannot keep up to the needs this year.
And the kids at the School across the road have never seen tadpoles.
By the way he used AKA too, looks like he wants me to look up everything. Bas puts it up and he wont read them, if he did objectively in my view he would start to see it all.
I know in my career we used anachronims all the time then at Officers college we were not allowed. They said, "they are weeds in sentences". So dunno, Julia has been trying to correct my English.
All I know is that it has not rained in this region since October and the water carters cannot keep up to the needs this year.
And the kids at the School across the road have never seen tadpoles.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,691
- Reactions
- 10,300
I hear what you are saying plod.
Though I had cicadas and frogs last night serenading me to sleep.
And it rained today. They knew.
I trust you get rain soon.
Your allies in the global warming scare are such as Capn.Terrific and Bob Brown in our Southern Ocean.
They bring no answers to the problem, only putative causes and division.
Much as I detest Japanese whale killers, they are well suited adversaries with Greenpeace.
The issue is conflated on your side by poor science and dodgy proponents.
Sort that out, and you would have more like me willing to listen.
gg
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 11
:
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
What? When have I tried to correct your English?
explod
explod
- Joined
- 4 March 2007
- Posts
- 7,341
- Reactions
- 1,197
Actually I am sorry I said that in retrospect. I do suffer from a foot in mouth and in the heat of the moment will stretch old perceptions of what I think which is not necessarily what I know. I do need to focus more on the topic content and not the individuals posting it up. More often the target is wayneL and will try to cut it right out from now on.
Sorry for that Julia and thanks for drawing attention to it.
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
Nice post explod.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Just areminder. I am still waiting for an answer to my question
Bas, Plod, do you believe there ws no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?
Bas, Plod, do you believe there ws no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
Re Climate gate .
For whatever reason my original response cannot be uploaded.
There were 9 separate investigations into this issue. Every one of them exonerated the scientists from any misconduct.
If you want to read the details of their findings check the URL.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
For whatever reason my original response cannot be uploaded.
There were 9 separate investigations into this issue. Every one of them exonerated the scientists from any misconduct.
If you want to read the details of their findings check the URL.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
I'm not asking John Cook. we hve already established that he ia not to be truated.
I'm asking you.
ps bloody phone... cnt edit typos
I'm asking you.
ps bloody phone... cnt edit typos
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
Read The Url Wayne or at least the 9 quotes from the investigations.
1) In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2) In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3) In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4) In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5) In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
6) In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7) In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8) In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9) In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
So exactly why should I disbelieve the results of 9 separate investigations into the emails?
Unless of course I summarily dismiss any representation from scientists in the Climate Research field as liars.
1) In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2) In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3) In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4) In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5) In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
6) In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7) In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8) In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9) In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
So exactly why should I disbelieve the results of 9 separate investigations into the emails?
Unless of course I summarily dismiss any representation from scientists in the Climate Research field as liars.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
+1. Thanks for sorting it out, explod.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
You attill haven't answered directly.
I don't want Cooks opinipn or veested intetests opinion. I want YOUR opinion
I don't want Cooks opinipn or veested intetests opinion. I want YOUR opinion
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,994
- Reactions
- 1,652
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
What does a glacier look like when it breaks off and becomes part of the sea?
Just saw a clip of the biggest glacier calving ever filmed. Amazing particularly when they show at the end the dimensions of the break up.
The last few seconds also has a sting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU
Just saw a clip of the biggest glacier calving ever filmed. Amazing particularly when they show at the end the dimensions of the break up.
The last few seconds also has a sting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU
- Joined
- 8 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 0
That is sooo cool.
I blame the CO2 produced in the time preceding 1902 which obviously set this all up, darn all that China burning fossil fuels back in the 19th century, DARN it I say.
MW
Isn't there an underlying priority somewhere along the lines of 'do no harm'. To which Geoffrey Edelston would add 'to your bank account'.... medicowallet , says it all, beautiful to watch in that unfolding train wreck kind'a'way.
If you haven't clicked, or should I say ch-chinged, It's called the precautionary principle.
Next month forecast is mentioned to have below average temperatures, but only after banging on for quite while how climate warmed up and how bad it is.
Looks that lower temperatures are part and parcel of Global Warming!
(Didn't know that, you always learn someting new)
Looks that lower temperatures are part and parcel of Global Warming!
(Didn't know that, you always learn someting new)
