Comments on: Consider this http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/consider-this/ A jaundiced view of the mainstream media. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chalcedon http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/consider-this/#comment-15555 Chalcedon Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:28:06 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=7336#comment-15555 So how come the Met office can forecast 50 and 100 years into the fture regarding a warmer climate owing to AGW? That doesn't make sense. After the revelations of climategate with UEA CU fiddling data to fit preconceived ideas or trends they had seen or thought they had seen from earlier work. Mind you I know one Oxford professor who reckons peer review is no arbiter of the accuracy or veracity of published papers and who thinks, based on his knowledge and experience, that a great many published scientific papers are, in his words, "bollocks". This will apply to climatology as much as any ology. But I guess physics without an ology is OK. So how come the Met office can forecast 50 and 100 years into the fture regarding a warmer climate owing to AGW? That doesn’t make sense. After the revelations of climategate with UEA CU fiddling data to fit preconceived ideas or trends they had seen or thought they had seen from earlier work. Mind you I know one Oxford professor who reckons peer review is no arbiter of the accuracy or veracity of published papers and who thinks, based on his knowledge and experience, that a great many published scientific papers are, in his words, “bollocks”. This will apply to climatology as much as any ology. But I guess physics without an ology is OK.

]]> By: Blink http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/consider-this/#comment-15452 Blink Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:12:27 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=7336#comment-15452 loada shit loada shit

]]> By: Alan http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/consider-this/#comment-15449 Alan Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:22:47 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=7336#comment-15449 A dung heap fit for the Turner Prize! In short, the Met Office aren't all that great at short term predictions and have finally confessed what we already knew - they are rubbish at seasonal predictions too but, they still claim to be accurate with extremely long range predictions that even an walarmist scientist is prepared to admit have no <i>predictive</i> value.(Kevin Trenberth - he stated recently that the models are <a href="http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21977114-27197,00.html" rel="nofollow">projections not predictions</a>. I take this to mean they are an extrapolation of recent trends and nothing more.) Katabasis, The self-certification nature of the Met Office 'review' is an eye opener. Man paid to review own work says <i>'Yes, I was right'</i> shock! A dung heap fit for the Turner Prize!

In short, the Met Office aren’t all that great at short term predictions and have finally confessed what we already knew – they are rubbish at seasonal predictions too but, they still claim to be accurate with extremely long range predictions that even an walarmist scientist is prepared to admit have no predictive value.(Kevin Trenberth – he stated recently that the models are projections not predictions. I take this to mean they are an extrapolation of recent trends and nothing more.)

Katabasis,

The self-certification nature of the Met Office ‘review’ is an eye opener. Man paid to review own work says ‘Yes, I was right’ shock!

]]> By: Katabasis http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/consider-this/#comment-15444 Katabasis Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:24:30 +0000 http://www.annaraccoon.com/?p=7336#comment-15444 For what its worth, here is my critique of the not-publicly-available "review" from the publicly-funded-at-massive-cost Met Office. Also, unlike the hacks writing in the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and the Times, I actually read the damn thing: http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2010/03/met-office-review-climate-change-human.html One of the most interesting facts about the BBC pension funds is that they are so heavily invested in Oil/Gas and Tobacco companies. Something to bring up *every* time you are on the receiving end of the "oil/gas/tobacco shill" accusation for daring to doubt the almighty consensus. For what its worth, here is my critique of the not-publicly-available “review” from the publicly-funded-at-massive-cost Met Office. Also, unlike the hacks writing in the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and the Times, I actually read the damn thing:

http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2010/03/met-office-review-climate-change-human.html

One of the most interesting facts about the BBC pension funds is that they are so heavily invested in Oil/Gas and Tobacco companies. Something to bring up *every* time you are on the receiving end of the “oil/gas/tobacco shill” accusation for daring to doubt the almighty consensus.

]]>