We are having fairly typical weather - as is everyone else - as long as you analyse results over more than the last 10 years! I despise reading panic headings like 'hottest december since 2003!!!" or even 'hottest week since 1934'. when exactly are the bozos going to realise that the central tenet of AGW is 'hottest EVER'? 'hottest since' is an actual repudiation of this tenet.
oh and a word on climate predictions... We are supposed to believe the bureau of meteorology's climate predictions for 2050 but 2 weeks before christmas they were predicting the 'coldest ever' - around 17 degrees. A week before christmas they were predicting the 'hottest ever' - around 41. the result? 27 with light rain - a perfect storm of error. but they have 2050 on the nail.... -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Theisen Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 7:58 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: Scientists vindicated geoff wrote: Hi Geoff, Is the "just weather" still freezing in oz? > 'vindication' has had its meaning changed. Despite clear and obvious > malpractice, six enquiries cleared them of misconduct. In previous > years, 'vindication' implied you were correct, now it means that you > support the orthodoxy. The same applies to Michael Mann's hockey stick > graph, created using a nonsense theory and processed by a > statistically invalid (almost > fraudulent) methodolody. Multiple enquiries have cleared him despite > the fact that if this level of 'research ' and statistical modelling > had been used in any other discipline, he would not have even gotten > his PhD never mind be elevated in the way he has been. IN what other > discipline of science can you produce a model whereby ANY DATA will > always produce a hockeystick graph and then be lauded as a world > expert? IN what other area of science can direct observation of the > last 60 years totally disagree with your model's predictions and yet you are always accepted as right? > > Today we dare to challenge Einstein's theory of relativity over > faster-than-light neutrinos and we call it 'scientific advance'. But > when we criticise Mann, it is denierism. > > The real reason I am a sceptic is because of people like Mann and the > people that cleared him and the others at CRU. A credible enquiry > could have even supported the message while criticising the > messengers. But when it says that they did no wrong THAT is when you > realise what a giant con this all is. Real Science doesn't need this > crap. Real scientists like Einstein were PROVEN right by > experimentation not by orthodoxy. In fact, it was the criticism of > others that proved him correct. Now, you are not allowed to criticise. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Nicholas Geti > Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012 5:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Scientists vindicated > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/new-speculation-on-who > -leake > d-climate-change-e-mails.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22 > > Article gives history of attack on integrity of global-warming > scientists and their vindication. Now a new wave of emails have > brought in the international police to find the culprits. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
