The following papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren't any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers.
snipGewoon blijven volhouden dat je cijfers/analyses/methodes/eindresultaten kloppen, maar de basisgegevens lekker onder de pet houden zodat niemand ze echt kan controleren. Precies hetzelfde verhaal als bij CRU, waar onderzoekers nu alleen nog beschikken over gemanipuleerde data, zie The Day The Science Died…
"There’s been a whole lot of work behind this in terms of things like having overlaps between particular stations when they’ve moved. There’s a whole methodology, internationally accepted, where you actually work out how to correct for these sorts of site changes and so on.”
“But you’ll be providing all that shortly?”
“Well, we’re not going to run around in circles just because somebody has put out a press release. We will continue to put out what is reasonable to provide.”
“Wouldn’t it be important –“
“No!”
“…for people to see the comparison studies between both sites?”
“Look, we’re talking about scientific studies here. I’ve told you we’ll put out information about Wellington. Basically it’s not up to us to justify ourselves to a whole lot of people that come out with truly unfounded allegations. We work through the scientific process, we publish stuff through the literature, that’s the way that we deal with this stuff and I can’t have my staff running around in circles over something which is not a justified allegation. The fact that the Climate Science Coalition are making allegations about my staff who have the utmost integrity really really pisses me off.
“That’s all I’ve got to say to you now – [click]”
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
+minus+1971-2000+normal.bmp)
Begin januari ga ik naar Turkije als lid van een delegatie van de Tweede Kamercommissie Europese Zaken. Mijn eerste bezoek aan een islamitisch land sinds het uitkomen van Fitna, ruim anderhalf jaar geleden.Zie: website PVV
De afgelopen dagen heb ik veel e-mails ontvangen: ‘Meneer Wilders, ga alstublieft niet. Ze vermoorden u daar of leveren u uit aan Jordanië.’ Ik ga ervan uit dat mijn beveiliging afdoende geregeld wordt en dat de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Maxime Verhagen – zoals hij vaker doet als ik naar het buitenland ga – garanties aan de Turkse regering vraagt en krijgt dat ik niet zal worden uitgeleverd.
Waarom ga ik naar Turkije? Omdat ik het als volksvertegenwoordiger en politiek leider van de virtueel grootste partij van Nederland niet meer dan behoorlijk vind om de Turken recht in hun gezicht te vertellen waarom ze wat ons betreft nooit lid mogen worden van de EU. Waarom voor de PVV het adagium geldt: Turkije erin, Nederland eruit!
1.Look at something happening.
2.Think of a way to explain what’s happening.
3.Make a convincing case, based on evidence and experiment, that this is the best known explanation. Part of this “convincing case” is providing enough information so that a knowledgeable person could, if necessary, perform the same experiments and get the same results. (This should really include some weasel-wording about “within experimental error,” but that’s a technical detail. What’s important is that the knowledgeable third party can get close enough to the same results to satisfy that third part.)
4.Submit that convincing case to other knowledgeable people to review, in order to see if they also find it convincing. This is what is called peer review.
5.Publish that convincing case for the rest of the world, where the results can be seen, commented upon, and challenged.
6.Every so often, others perform the same experiments and confirm or question the results.
The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.Read the article, including links to the source material at Pajamas Media
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Posts
Alle reacties
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
