How exactly are the clowns misquoted, or taken out of context??

SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time,  proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s  dramatic decline in rainfall.

A  three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has  confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not  just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html#ixzz26Q8KALjC

So how was it proven? Where is there any proof that an increase in greenhouse gases had anything to do with it? Why are they backtracking and saying they are taken out of context?? The alarmist clowns have no shame at all.

Heres the permanent shift in great detail:

A 3 year study, costing how much exactly?? Apparently proving what? The only thing out of context is how bad this prediction is, and the paper is not worth the paper its written on.

All we hear is excuses, as every prediction goes in the bin, one after the other.

“It may be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent . .. ‘Perhaps we should call it our new climate,’ said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.”

David continually says he is taken out of context. How exactly? Perhaps we should call it our new climate, he believes 100% that the drought is permanent. However, it is not.

Why all the back tracking? Can these alarmists not admit they were wrong?

Does it even matter considering we broke ever rainfall record under the Sun since that article was written?

David Jones to Phil Jones in 2007:

Truth be known, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse…

So now the Murray Darling Basin is at 93%, what exactly is there to be taken out of context? If that was climate change, what have we witnessed the last 3 years then? This prediction was incredibly bad, and incorrect.

If he had any credibility at all , he would admit this was a huge blunder and we need more time to collaborate many more years of data, rather than slaughter the database with adjustments ad nauseam.

Then again, the BOM, CSIRO and federal government have no care about the consumer, it’s all about lining their own pockets with our money.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s