This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new

What does BWT mean ?
 
explod said:
What does BWT mean ?
Click to expand...

BWT means


Although he said BTW.

Which I reckon means

"by the way".

Although it could mean


gg
 
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.
 

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
 

That's not climate, thats weather.

BTW is not an anachronim, it is an acronym, BTW :
 
Julia said:
What? When have I tried to correct your English?
Click to expand...

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.
 

Nice post explod.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
You attill haven't answered directly.

I don't want Cooks opinipn or veested intetests opinion. I want YOUR opinion
 

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
 
medicowallet said:
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
Click to expand...

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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...