Another eminent scientist sees the light.
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News (external - login to view)
And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
Dr. Aaserud:I mean, that's pretty rich don't you think? How many researchers have been involved in collecting temperature data in the UK? How many formats has the data gone through? Yet, it's fraud when data cannot be accounted for? So...don't cite any papers by Lewis? Should we still respect him for the work he did?
Your papers — correspondence, notes, manuscripts, things of that sort — what's the status of those? That's another thing we're interested in.
Yes. I really don't have them, you know. I've long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that's what you mean.
No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
There are lots of things, but they're scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I'm actually doing these days.
You're jumping the gun. Just because I don't look up much, doesn't mean that I don't look up at all. During my leisure time I do look up often, though leisure time is far outweighed by working time.
I luckily work outdoors and these parts you don't need to look up to see the sky. If you were too see my skies then your trust in the what you are told would falter in a hurry.
I know what I see and when what I see isn't included in the data sets, I have to stop and say;"WTF, This is Bull****!?"
If you think I'm bull****ting I'll gladly set up my camera and take a pic every 15mins and you can watch my blue sky go white from aircraft too.
I lived on the Prairies...what exactly is it you think that I think, and that you think would shake the trust that you think I have in what you think I think?
Maybe you're looking in the wrong data sets...if you weren't so ubiquitously vague...well this conversation might actually go somewhere.
Which data set where you hoping to find measures of sky colour in???
So let me get this straight petros.
In a thread about the death knell for AGW you post something that is AGW?
Yes it is interesting how IPCC has no classification for CONTROLABLE man made cirus cloud formations to distinguish from the natural.
NASA and NOAA have claimed that these CONTROLABLE man made cirus formations need to be catalogued in the IPCC formula and researched far more seriously as they are the source of 40% of the atmospheric vapour.
What have you gleaned from this interesting fact?