Arfa Daily wrote:



**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



But that "one organisation" is the central driving force and advisory body
for the whole bloody world-wide debate. I think that the fact that they have
tried to pervert some data and suppress other, is a little more than
"distressing", and definitely potentially disasterous. The peer review
process that you seem to find so robust, clearly isn't, otherwise these
anomalies would have been picked up. If the bulk of that review body has
become evangelical about the subject, then what they are doing is merely
rubber stamping the papers that their chums put out. When any of their peers
dares to venture a contrary opinion, they are publicly lambasted and
derided, and called all sorts of offensive names such as "denier", or
"flat-earther". Hardly a fair peer review system, I would venture to
suggest. There is a huge body of contrary evidence out there, which is
currently being ignored or shouted down. The condition of global warming is
very real. It has happened before at many points in history, and can be seen
clearly in the data, as I understand it. As to whether that condition is
being caused, driven, or even affected by man's activities is still, in my
opinion, far from proven, and certainly nowhere near as much as the
vociferous community behind the 'science' would have everyone believe. But,
unlike the MMGW brigade, that doesn't mean that I have closed my mind to
everything that doesn't seem to agree with that standpoint. I am open to
persuasion, as all sensible people should be, but the facts and theories
must be laid before me in a 'level playing field' and unbiased way, in order
for me to properly evaluate them, and incorporate them into my overall
understanding of the subject.

I'm not a climate specialist, but I have eyes in my head, and a reasonably
good brain, and above all, 55 years of experience in listening to bull****,
and boy, is all of this ringing the bull**** warning bells. I actually find
it worrying that grown adults can be swept along quite so easily. As for GWB
being a "religious nutter", I think it is worth stopping to consider what a
'religion' is. Look at some of the dictionary definitions for the word, and
you will find that the MM global warming brigade tick the boxes pretty much
to perfection, so are they all religious nutters as well ? It's easy to
deride GWB for his standpoint on all of this, and maybe he is a nutter, and
maybe he was wrong, but from where I'm looking at it, he was merely showing
a degree of healthy skepticism on the subject, and looking after the
interests of his citizens, unlike what's happening here in Europe and the
UK, where we are being forced to accept crap light bulbs, and ridiculous
windmills all over our once lovely countryside, and are actually teaching
this unproven 'science' to our kids in school like it's proper text-book
fact, all in the name of "reducing carbon footprint".

And how silly are all these evocative terms that are being used, as well ? I
actually hate it. It's getting so that every news broadcast on the TV, is
just a litany of these trite phrases and words. As someone else said, it
really is getting so that everything that happens, is being attributed to
global warming.

Oh, and "heretic" is another word regularly used by the MMCC evangelists to
describe those with a different opinion. That has pretty religious
connotations, wouldn't you say ... ? :-)

Arfa


Very well said Arfa. Here's a speech given by the renowned physicist
Richard Feynman on how science *should* be practiced. Notice how many
of his points are routinely ignored by the climate "scientists".

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

It's a bit long, but very apropos.

Jerry