On 28 July, 09:50, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 28, 8:33*am, Natsman wrote:





On 28 July, 03:50, Roger Coppock wrote:

On Jul 27, 4:01*pm, Meteorologist wrote:

accuweatherhttp://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science/34446/global-t...

"If you have the data, your best way to get toward the right answer in
terms of climate science is by looking the long-term trends. I
constantly see stories, blogs and videos picking out just a handful of
years or even months/weeks to make a declaration about the current and
future climate. This is climate science not meteorology."

GOOD POST!!!!!!!!!

Ah, but if you have the data, can you resist the pressing urge to
adjust it in some personally convenient way before others get a chance
to see it?

CK

There's always one.

There's nothing wrong with what Crunchy posted this time, from his
favourite and only read site - until someone else tries to impose
their political; and conspiracist agenda.

Post weather and try to infer something about climate and I am highly
likely to call you stupid; whether you are a proponent of AGW, a
sceptic, or a denier. Try to politicise a perfectly correct statement
and you're likely to get the same treatment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Call me what you like, your own 'popularity' is hardly enviable.
I'm firmly on the realistic side of the fence - there's so much
evidence of data manipulation, it's difficult to sort fact from
fiction. Suffice it to say, your case is crumbling big time - even
your own proponents are turning tail and backing away from your
dogma. It's cooling, Dawlish, wake up - and I don't just mean the
climate...

CK