To warm or not to warm

Dale Willman writes to share the piece below. I threw in the Gore image from the "Heartland" site, it seems to be an active link. This stuff will make sense below. So, go below.

Fury over 'unethical' warming website

5:00AM Thursday May 08, 2008
By Angela Gregory

New Zealand climate scientists are upset their names have been used by an American organisation wanting to challenge the increasingly accepted view that climate change is human induced.

Among the five scientists is Niwa principal scientist Dr Jim Salinger, who said he was annoyed the Heartland Institute was trying to use his research to prove a theory he did not personally support.

The institute describes itself as a non-profit research and education organisation not affiliated with any political party, business or foundation.

Dr Salinger said he was never contacted about his work which was being mis-used to undermine support for the idea that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, largely fossil fuel burning, was warming the globe.

"I object to the implication that my research supports their position ... they didn't check with me."

He said that he and the other New Zealand scientists all felt their work had been misinterpreted....

The rest is here

-------
Me. I can't be held responsible for remembering what I have written. Apparently, I quoted this group. Recall. I am not making arguments, per se, here. Just airing contrary views in a snide way and that is taken as a position by many. I appreciate the anarchist, now.

Anyway, New Zealand is full of socalists out to get me. The story is from Reuters, the devil's workshop. The article Dale sent shows how the article is useless because they wrote "organisation." Morons.
-------
The disgruntled true believer, Dr. Salinger, doesn't say Heartand is wrong, just he resents his work being used to prove a point he "personally" disagrees with. This argument is revealing no matter what is true. Is this how we do science? We try to promote personal feelings?
-------
Everyone has a bias. That is what is behind what I do, as best I can. That used to be the basis of science. My concern is over the establishment of opinions as axioms. See below.....

Click here for the the Heartland site
-------

Here is something of interest from the minority side - - - -

Some say that gobal warming has not arrived, in reality, outside of stories about how roses bloom early, so the fall-back position is there is a minor timeout.

A 10-year timeout for global warming, study says

The German research effort is one of the first to attempt 10-year climate forecasts.

Source: Copyright 2008, Christian Science Monitor
Date: May 1, 2008
Byline: Peter N. Spotts
Original URL

Global warming is taking a break that could last for another 10 years or so. That's the latest word from a team of climate researchers in Germany. Global average temperatures should remain above normal, the team suggests. But additional warming – already on hold over the first seven years of this decade – is likely to remain that way for another decade.....

The rest is HERE

Yeah, I put in the bold. Think about it, this crisis is on vacation for 17 years, according to the article. Doesn't that suggest something? And where were those hurricanes that were to kill all the Republicans in the South? Maybe, this year.

The article reports on an issue of Nature magazine; it is not a fabrication by those gun-loving, mean Christian Scientists. The link is to a single space, no paragraph article that was too hard to actually read seriously, I will eventually and report back as the topic looks very annoying to Dale.