Gary i clicked on the link and it says

YOU HAVE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER SECTION so i can't read the articule but i don't need to .

This is my answer


The Australian is published by News Corp Australia, an asset of News Corp, which also owns the sole dailies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin and the most popular metropolitan dailies in Sydney and Melbourne. News Corp's Chairman and Founder is Rupert Murdoch

The biggest climate denier there is

Then let me link you to the paper they referenced.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent
decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a
phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we
present an updated global
surface temperature analysis that reveals that
global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent
decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the
first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the
20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in
the increase of global surface temperature.

just by sheer volume Mr. Murdoch may ocasionally publish something correct

---

Then let me link you to the paper they referenced.

still can't see the whole article only a abstract so i would need to read the whole thing .

Why is it not avaliable to the General public , something fishy going on there .

Anyway so where does that lead you in your thoughts a denier or you turning against the deniers now .

2 reasons the number may be fudged

1 Governments don't wish to panic people so are playing it down

2 BIG OIL , Gas trying to make out there is no problem

And i have been saying there has been no stop in the temps , they have still been going up .

---

Then let me link you to the paper they referenced.

still can't see the whole article only a abstract so i would need to read the whole thing .

Why is it not avaliable to the General public , something fishy going on there .

Anyway so where does that lead you in your thoughts a denier or you turning against the deniers now .

2 reasons the number may be fudged

1 Governments don't wish to panic people so are playing it down

2 BIG OIL , Gas trying to make out there is no problem

And i have been saying there has been no stop in the temps , they have still been going up .

Glenn,

The whole study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full

We have known that NOAA 'cooks' the data for quite some time. They have admitted doing so a long time ago, as have the equivalent organizations in both the UK and Australia. This much isn't news.

What IS news is that when the 'cooked' data showed a 'hiatus' in global warming, NOAA scientists 'cooked' the data AGAIN to eliminate the 'hiatus'.

In this 'study' they admit in their OWN WORDS that not only did they 'cherry-pick' the data sources but also fiddled with the amounts of the 'adjustments' until they eliminated the (to them) inconvenient evidence that there was/is a hiatus.

Their already cooked data showed an anomaly (the hiatus) that they could not explain without throwing a big bucket of doubt on their entire house of cards (GHG-AGW), so rather that just keeping on giving the statement 'we are not sure WHY, but it does appear to have slowed down a little' (what the last IPCC report said), they cooked the data AGAIN to eliminate the anomaly (the hiatus).

The DENIERS are no longer the skeptics on GHG-AGW.

The DENIERS now are the TRUE BELIEVERS (tm) who are refusing to admit that 'something fishy' is going on with the scientific integrity of the GHG-AGW scientists.

The DENIERS are no longer the skeptics on GHG-AGW.

The DENIERS now are the TRUE BELIEVERS (tm) who are refusing to admit that 'something fishy' is going on with the scientific integrity of the GHG-AGW scientists.

Kong that doesn't make sence mate . They the scientists cooked the books a bit so i can understand why , so as to not panic the people .

They got cought ok there guilty of fudging the numbers .

From what i've seen at the attitudes of people in your country you are still kicking and screaming even thou now you you say there is a problem

As for the integrity of the data one word OIL

If i remember right it's the republicans that have driven the denial so maybe people should look there as most of the big oil money is on that side of politics or am i mistaken !!!!

AKA : Libral Party here Tony Abbott whom removes the carbon tax and you would not believe what that "F"er is doing now ....Thank gowd only 12 months to go before we can get rid of that ick

---

Gary i clicked on the link and it says
YOU HAVE REACHED A SUBSCRIBER SECTION so i can't read the articule but i don't need to .
This is my answer
The Australian is published by News Corp Australia, an asset of News Corp, which also owns the sole dailies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin and the most popular metropolitan dailies in Sydney and Melbourne. News Corp's Chairman and Founder is Rupert Murdoch
The biggest climate denier there is

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-scientists-warm-to-new-brawl/story-e6frg6xf-1227385456622&memtype=anonymous

You've reached a subscriber-only article.
Would you like to become a subscriber for 50% less for the first 12 weeks?* Sign up now and access the full breadth of The Australian's content in minutes.
3.00 AUD per week.
For the first 12 weeks then $6 per week†

What the ...
That's 4,61 USD or 4,10 EUR.
Here my newspaper costs 10,73 EUR per month if I want to read all articles!
We have teasers of the article though.

Janne 3.00 aud is only $3 or that about $2.40 American or 1.50 pound or 2.40 euro

1 ozzie dollar is about 0.77 cents American
1 ozzie is 0.69 euro
1 ozzie is 0.50 pence
1 ozzie is 0.77 swiss franc

as of 5 mins ago

---

Janne 3.00 aud is only $3 or that about $2.40 American or 1.50 pound or 2.40 euro

1 ozzie dollar is about 0.77 cents American
1 ozzie is 0.69 euro
1 ozzie is 0.50 pence
1 ozzie is 0.77 swiss franc

as of 5 mins ago

First year 3 UAD 2.31 USD yes...
Then 6 UAD 4.61 USD...

oh ok your quoting the after 3 months period . Still 90 cents a day is still cheaper than what it costs in the shop $1.20 a paper .

Yes i know it sounds a lot but you have to remember we do get paid a lot more too

I get $540 per fortnight after rent power gas and rentals are taken out per fortnight so for me yes it's expensive but not if your working and earning $50,000 a year or as i was in 2000 $65,000

this is from the bureu of stats here in ozz

Full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings
$1 476.30

---

Proved Major... Point.

We now understand who the Deniers really are.

Again... Why do you support those committing 'Scientific Treason'?

umm say what !

whom do you say i should listen to then ??

if all the climate scientists are fudging the numbers then whom do you lisen too the oil company's

BTW i don't support any i do my own research and make my own conclusions by looking at the facts like the readings from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii
or the NSIDC data on sea ice

But buy you post there Fudging the numbers so we can't trust them right , but if it's back by big oil we can ?

I know your both smarter than that .

---

@Glenn
It's not about the Money.
I know that journalists want food on the table everyday.
But I thought all those ads in newspapers you have to read or watch where enough.
And I read a lot of newspapers now from different countries.

Full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings $1476.30 in ozz

Thats 6431 UAD a month!
Here it's 3847 UAD a month!!!!
Australia VAT Rate. 10%
Swedish VAT Rate. 25%

Janne we are talking about Rupert Murdoch here , i'm shore you have read what happen'd in England with the phone hacks the man has no morals at all

---

Janne we are talking about Rupert Murdoch here , i'm shore you have read what happen'd in England with the phone hacks the man has no morals at all

Rupert Murdoch only knows how to make Money.
Using arguments like this
"People died of cancer before cigarettes where invented so smoking doesn't cause cancer."

Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/14/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics

In a recent Sky News interview, Rupert Murdoch expressed his own views about global warming and climate change.
https://youtu.be/3plf1VGlccM

Janne we are talking about Rupert Murdoch here , i'm shore you have read what happen'd in England with the phone hacks the man has no morals at all

Rupert Murdoch only knows how to make Money.
Using arguments like this
"People died of cancer before cigarettes where invented so smoking doesn't cause cancer."

Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/14/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics

In a recent Sky News interview, Rupert Murdoch expressed his own views about global warming and climate change.
https://youtu.be/3plf1VGlccM

But we are talking about the Journal Science. The Journal Science does know AGW/GHG. They are published by American Association for the Advancement of Science, not the Heartland Institute. And NOAA, in Science, has admitted it has to cherry pick data, just like Heartland, to make their argument for climate change. So NOAA needs to be regarded as identically reliable as Heartland.

Don't forget, this paper says the IPCC is wrong. IPCC is the best and brightest people on climate change. If there were any real errors in the climate record, they would have spotted them. They did not find any.

Now that leaves NOAA and Obama its boss. It is possible he still has some campaign br^h^h promises to fulfill with some more Solyndra style loans.

---

Janne we are talking about Rupert Murdoch here , i'm shore you have read what happen'd in England with the phone hacks the man has no morals at all

Rupert Murdoch only knows how to make Money.
Using arguments like this
"People died of cancer before cigarettes where invented so smoking doesn't cause cancer."

Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/14/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics

In a recent Sky News interview, Rupert Murdoch expressed his own views about global warming and climate change.
https://youtu.be/3plf1VGlccM

But we are talking about the Journal Science. The Journal Science does know AGW/GHG. They are published by American Association for the Advancement of Science, not the Heartland Institute. And NOAA, in Science, has admitted it has to cherry pick data, just like Heartland, to make their argument for climate change. So NOAA needs to be regarded as identically reliable as Heartland.

Don't forget, this paper says the IPCC is wrong. IPCC is the best and brightest people on climate change. If there were any real errors in the climate record, they would have spotted them. They did not find any.

Now that leaves NOAA and Obama its boss. It is possible he still has some campaign br^h^h promises to fulfill with some more Solyndra style loans.

I know.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full
This article is mentioned in an Australian newspaper owned by Rubert Murdoch.

The Australian is published by News Corp Australia, an asset of News Corp, which also owns the sole dailies in Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin and the most popular metropolitan dailies in Sydney and Melbourne. News Corp's Chairman and Founder is Rupert Murdoch

Why is there so many deniers left?
http://news.sky.com/story/1504416/pope-calls-for-fossil-fuels-to-be-phased-out
Money? Yes.
Economics? No

The Solutions thread would be enough already for me..

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Stanford researcher warns sixth mass extinction is here.
https://youtu.be/cmb5hn2X2ok
http://rt.com/news/268513-mass-extinction-diversity-humanity/

An international research team in the journal Science:
As the climate gets warmer many species extends their fields to the north or to higher elevations in order to compensate for the warmer temperatures in the south.
This does not seem to apply to bumblebees. For some reason "is not the" north. In both North America and Europe, this has meant that bumblebees lost up to 300 km of its spread southwards.
- The most frightening is how quickly it has gone. Some species were very common in the 1970s and well into the 1980s that no one can hardly see anymore, said Professor Sheila Colla, one of the researchers behind the study, in a statement.

Early on July 3 was the first night of the season when the air temperature did not fall below 20.0 °C at the Swedish station. That is to say, it was a so-called tropical night .
It was on Kuggören coast of Hälsingland outside Hudiksvall, which accounted for the listing. In addition there was a tropical night with a good margin, the temperature fell no lower than 22.3 °C during the night.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smhi.se%2Fbloggar%2Fvaderleken%2F2015%2F07%2F03%2Fmarklig-temperaturstegring-foljt-av-sommarens-forsta-tropiska-natt-i-sverige%2F&edit-text=

It's obvious that the climate are changing.
And it's doing it fast.

Presstitutes

I'd never heard that word before reading the story. ;~)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place