Where is the Ministry for Science?

[i-need-a-martini]

What about Innovation? Research? Ageing?

Or even Tourism?

And how come Arts gets lumbered in with the Attorney Generals busy portfolio?

Yet Border Protection gets it's own ministry rather than falling under the obvious category of Defence. An entire ministry for a handful of people that apparently aren't going to be coming here anymore?

[**meep**]

Nah, just judge anything with independent in the title as not worthy of reading, regardless of how qualified the writer is to comment.

No thanks.  I'd rather not do that.   I won't automatically dismiss anything  that has independent in the title.  I prefer to examine the source a little more closely but please, tell me more about the writer.

[not_an_eloi]

Why was Greenland called Greenland when it is covered in snow

wiki says:

It was the early Scandinavian settlers who gave the country the name Greenland. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. Along with his extended family and his thralls, he set out in ships to explore icy land known to lie to the northwest. After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers

roight ?

[not_an_eloi]

Why was Greenland called Greenland when it is covered in snow

wiki says:

It was the early Scandinavian settlers who gave the country the name Greenland. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. Along with his extended family and his thralls, he set out in ships to explore icy land known to lie to the northwest. After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it Grœnland (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers

roight ?

[not_an_eloi]

any'how, on with the topic of science, new information    

'Overwhelming' consensus for manmade warming: review

"A comprehensive assessment of climate change research has found an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-induced"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/overwhelming-consensus-for-manmade-warming-says-review/4693016

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

New information?...lol

Article dated...16 May 2013, 10:04am AEST

A couple of days ago the IPCC admitted they got it wrong........ not surprising since they have based on all their predictions on seriously  flawed computer models.......it seems they forgot that  "natural variation" actually happens.....lol.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

Abbott shuts down Climate Commission

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/19/tony-abbot-abolishes-climate-commission_n_3953169.html?ut...

No surprises in climate agencies' dismantling

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/19/3852408.htm

...and the headlines keep coming......... 

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

World's top climate scientists confess:

Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419557/Climate-change-models-accurate-study-finds-widely-ov...

Gee wiz....... there are sooooo many headlines just like these........lol.

Here are a few quotes from Dr Roy Spencer....

 'In the coming years, scientists will increasingly realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is, on the whole, good for life on Earth.

Given that CO2 is necessary for life, and that nature continues to gobble up 50% of the CO2 we produce as fast as we can produce it, I won’t be that surprised when that paradigm shift occurs, either.' -- 'With over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.'

.But now, with the IPCC unable to convincingly explain the recent stall in warming (some say a change to weak cooling), the fact that they are forced to actually recognize reality and make changes in their report — possibly reducing the lower bound for future warming, thus reducing the range of climate sensitivity — is quite momentous.

My main point is that nothing stands in the way of a popular theory (e.g. global warming) better than failed forecasts.

 We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.

A few of us are not that surprised, as we always distrusted the level of faith that climate modelers had in their understanding of the causes of climate change."..

...giggle....