The 300

[woodchip]

Nope, topic not about the Spartans at Thermopylae. I seem to remember TB posting a topic how NOAA was not giving accurate information about temperature data. Well seems TB is not alone:

“Americans are tired of research conducted behind closed doors where they only see cherry-picked conclusions, not the facts. This letter shows that hundreds of respected scientists and experts agree that NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data deserve serious scrutiny.”

Of the 300 letter signers, 150 had doctorates in a related field. Signers also included: 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists. Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-s ... ming-data/

So vision, tell us again how there are no real scientist questioning areas of climate change.

[callmeslick]

next week, when I get my life back, my personal project will be to determine how many of these 'experts' and 'scientists':
1.have any published climate papers
2. have any known ties to the petrochemical industry
3. have any history of party politics

until then, I'll put myself down for skeptical, but won't out and out call BS yet.

[callmeslick]

when Bob Tisdale is cited as one of the 'experts', you start to get uneasy from the get-go:

http://climateconomysociety.blogspot.co ... dales.html


the guy has been liked to a LOT of various conspiracy theories, and thinks all we have going on is CAUSED by El Nino cycles, without the slightest indication of a theory of WHY El Nino/La Nina phenomenon occur, apparently.

[Vander]

I don't see anywhere in the linked article where these people are questioning accuracy of the NOAA report. They appear to be asking NOAA to "show their work." I don't have a problem with that.

[woodchip]

next week, when I get my life back, my personal project will be to determine how many of these 'experts' and 'scientists':
1.have any published climate papers
I said "scientist" (as did vision).
Perhaps you should reread East Anglica emails where climate skeptic papers were not published

2. have any known ties to the petrochemical industry
And how much warmer research is funded by the Federal Govt. compared to skeptic research?

3. have any history of party politics
And warmer scientists don't?

until then, I'll put myself down for skeptical, but won't out and out call BS yet.

[vision]

So vision, tell us again how there are no real scientist questioning areas of climate change.

Do you have any unbiased sources? This article cites it's own web page several times. The Daily Caller is a conservative editorial site.. It also cites a know climate denial blog, twice. The article does not list the names of the "scientists." Literally everything about that article fails skeptical inquiry.

[callmeslick]

woody's reply just saved me a lot of bother. He's not about to look too deeply where his sources come from so long as they agree with his preconceptions.

[woodchip]

Ah yes, kill the messenger again. Can't really dispute anything I see. Speak about locked into dogma.

[callmeslick]

Ah yes, kill the messenger again. Can't really dispute anything I see. Speak about locked into dogma.

no, it's more like tired of bull★■◆●, as I pointed out in the Oregon thread where you floated more BS. Give us facts, not fiction, please.

[woodchip]

The only BS is that you are trying to deny what I linked. Got proof it is BS other than visions complaint the link is a conservative site? If not, just quietly sit in the corner and suck your thumb.

[sigma]

Here and the facts and evidence. 2016 began in Russia with the ozone hole the size of Antarctica. Congratulate everyone. This is only the beginning.
http://regnum.ru/news/accidents/2067517.html