The hilarious thing is that when Abbott/Hockey want to fix Australia's future by fixing the economy the left jumps down their throats. And that's fixing things in a straightforward, [size=9][size=9]practical[/size][/size] way.

And get the left wants to tie our future to some nebulous global warming alarmism and believes that we are doomed.

Seriously, you couldn't make this shit up.

Edited by thupercoach: 20/5/2014 04:01:44 AM

-PB

If you cut down on your takeaway eating, you're improving your family budget in a straightforward, PRACTICAL way. Capish?

Queensland University tries to block climate research
GRAHAM LLOYD THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 17, 2014 12:00AM

[size=6]THE University of Queensland has threatened legal action to stop the release of data used in a paper that establishes a 97 per cent scientific consensus on ­anthropogenic climate change.[/size]

[size=6]The paper, lead authored by John Cook, has been the subject of debate over its methodology since it was published last year.

The university said yesterday it was prepared to take legal action to protect the privacy of survey participants.[/size]

Blogger Brandon Schollenberger said UQ had written to him claiming information he had received was illegally obtained and that the matter had been referred to US law enforcement authorities. If the material were published, UQ said, it would sue for breach of copyright.

The Cook paper said that among research expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming, 97.2 per cent ­endorsed the consensus.

“Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,’’ said the paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

UQ’s acting pro-vice-­chancellor (Research and International) Alastair McEwan said all data substantiating the paper, Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature, had been published on Skepticalscience.com.

“UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” he said.

“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the ­research on condition of anonymity. Such conditions are not uncommon in academic ­research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”

[size=6]The legal fight comes amid reports in London claiming that one of the world’s top journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately ­denounced it as “harmful”.

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, told The Times he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.[/size]

[size=6]“The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.[/size]

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that the ­global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September.

Anyone reading the above Australian article should check this website out first and then take everything the Australian has to say about climate science with a giant wheelbarrow of salt.

The Australian's War on Science.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/category/the_war_on_science/

More than 80 articles printed in the Australian torn apart by actual real scientists specialists in their field not your youtube Xena Princess warrior, tin-foil hat, ricecracker types.

http://www.desmogblog.com/how-australian-newspaper-warps-world-climate-science




Edited by munrubenmuz: 20/5/2014 01:17:03 PM

If you cut down on your takeaway eating, you're improving your family budget in a straightforward, PRACTICAL way. Capish?

In any case your posted article proves nothing. It says that UQ wants to stop the release of data.

It doesn't say anywhere that the published paper is incorrect or false in it's assertions.

It may come to that but it doesn't say it yet.

I bet you got a lot of "could do better" comments on your report cards.

In any case your posted article proves nothing. It says that UQ wants to stop the release of data.

It doesn't say anywhere that the published paper is incorrect or false in it's assertions.

It may come to that but it doesn't say it yet.

I bet you got a lot of "could do better" comments on your report cards.

checkmate

lol at this moron on the run

How is he a moron ?

1. Queenslander
2. He cant answer a simple question and has now resorted to distraction tactics.

weasel mentality this world could do less of imo

numerous other reasons demonstrated on these forums i dont have all day to elaborate on

whats it to you anyway?

checkmate

You're embarrassing yourself. You posted to up article to bolster your argument that says there is no 97% consensus and then when it's been pointed out that the article, in fact, does nothing of the sort, resorts to insults.

I've answered all of your questions. You could try that yourself one day.

PS: I live in bananaland but I'm no banana. Go the Blues!

“UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the ­research on condition of anonymity. Such conditions are not uncommon in academic ­research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”

this is too funny, because the research participants names are the actual crucial data in this study
no names, no data :lol:

the hubris of these frauds

i'm going to commission a study that says 97% of scientists agree that pink unicorns exist on easter island.
i'm not going to tell you who the scientists are because it would breach their confidentiality and deter them from participating in valuable research. they're real scientists though, trust me and 97% did actually agree this is fact, trust me on that too

my paper will be peer reviewed though (by a few of my mates who'll give it the thumbs up)

Edited by ricecrackers: 20/5/2014 03:01:20 PM

Once again showing all your ignorance

Years in the future I hope the people who were ignorantly rejecting the science be held accountable for not just the deaths of man they caused but the deaths of animals and the environment destruction that their ignorant skepticism (in the face of few things with more scientific certainty) caused via both their individual greed and inability to accept science. Sadly it will probably never be the case or only be the case when its too late