Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:


Nowadays you can get a degree in Applied Climatology, Oceanography or Atmospheric Physics to name a few disciplines.

Climatologists cover a reasonably wide field of disciplines, including the Earth / Sun/ Moon system geometry, thermodynamics, atmospheric circulation, meteorology, adiabatic processes, the study of hydrological cycles,  the global energy balance, Atmospheric Physics, related measurement techniques, glaciology and paleoclimatology.  - and that's not an exhaustive list by any means.

Applied Climatology usually refers to subjects such as aviation climatology or Agricultural Climatology.

If the authors of a paper don't regularly publish in reputable Climatology journals, then they are very much on the fringe.

Statistics is included in just about any scientific discipline, but it's not a major part of the science of climatology. We use statistics mainly as a tool.  

Grendel wrote on Apr 28^th, 2010 at 5:27pm:

Not per se, but it certainly should set your "nutter" alarm a-ringin'. But I guess if Grendel came installed with a nutter alarm, he wouldn't have quoted that, ummm ... quality research ... from the OISM's barnyard office.

Grendel wrote on Apr 29^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:


No. Not at all. They made good jeans



- or do you mean the purveyors  of 19th Century pop music?  The Ostrich family from Vienna?

Yes, I can just see you listening to André Rieu.

It is hard to believe that the obvious logical absurdity of a research institute being run like a nepotistic fiefdom is beyond your ken Grendel.

So Grendel, are you saying that you think legitimate research would be well served by running research institutes along the lines of a "nepotistic fiefdom"?

Now of course I accept that it does not necessary exclude, by it's structure, the possibility of being able to pursue meaningful, legitimate research, but I would contend that it significantly reduces that probability.

The fact that the study you referred to by the Idsos was 12 years old, which did seem to be aimed at supporting denialist ideas, and the intervening period seems to have been spent in the promotion of the idea of denialism, rather than the actual further research one would have expected, if they wanted to validate their studies original findings.

So instead of testing and expanding upon their original idea, they choose to flog it around denialist blogs for over a decade, as a better use of their family research institutes resources.

Now the fact that the initial report, "The Greening Of Planet Earth, Its Progression From Hypothesis To Theory", , delivered in January 1998, was commissioned as a project for them to complete by Western Fuels Association, who is also suspected as being the primary funder of their institute, although that can neither be confirmed or denied,because they refuse to identify any sources of funding they receive, does raise suspicions about their independence.

But hey, you judge for yourself, I will stick with traditional sources like Nature, or RealClimate.org. for my trusted information.

Yes Mozz, well you stick to the biased propaganda sites...  i read them too and I know when they are being biased...  something you apparently don't.

Point 2...  you aren't as well qualified as they are to comment on the subject.

Point 3... they dissent your pov, being better qualified than you.

Point 4... this topic is called what?

Grendel wrote on May 3^rd, 2010 at 6:17pm:


Grendel,

You don't have to be particularly well qualified to comment, but you do need to know the basics at least.

The Greenhouse Effect is primarily concerned with the effect of greenhouse gases on longwave radiation from the Earth, and has nothing to do with incident sunlight.

A person who doesn't comprehend the above fact would not be well placed when it comes to recognising bias on the issue.

I'd suggest that you take a long hard look at your bullshit meter. It's broken.

I think it may not actually be a meter, more like a two way valve system.

Bullshit in=Bullshit out.