i cant recall how many fluff and spin articles i have read
they have in common not much detail[detail can be refuted]
so they comeup with spin

it dosnt take much thought to link cricket to spin

""we explain this by her being in poor form.""

i explain this redirection
in lue of hard uptodate science as being in poor form

but love how you go from poor form
to this

""Just so with the climate and the weather.""

just so with alarmists
all chosing an angle
in lue of playing the ball

''By definition,the climate is the long term average of the weather.""

yes [we didnt know this]

""But we
also think of the climate
as the collection of natural forces
(sea surface temperatures, wind circulation patterns, humidity etc) which causes..(and thus explains)..the weather we have.""

expanding definitions is why you favour spin

recall you described global cooling[ie the ozone hole ]
then global warnming [tikll it was revealed there was more cooling]

now you reralised the 'climate is all ways changing'
and we get climate change[any change of season is now proof for the ignorant]

""If over a period of some years
the weather changes from what it has previously been, becoming hotter, say, or wetter, or even more varied, by definition the climate has changed.""

the data changed
the reaason for the season
[el nino/la nina southernn ossilation[sun cycle]
..went through its cycle

""We should have
no more trouble in saying this
than we do in saying that if our batswoman's performance changes, then so does her form.""

yes she missed her cycle
and now is a mother

""Similarly if the weather changes
in some particular way that shows a definite trend,
we should not have any trouble in saying this is caused by a change in the climate.""

[it was a trend
all trends end]

weather comes in cycles
every season has its reason

RPG

Calling us "The human virus" is putting our masses lightly, when seeing the damage that's happening ever so slowly mind you "some say" and the climate changes all can see/read, no-one would say its not happening RPG....and with the numbers of people on the planet now-days, some things going to break. Australian,s are concerned about the amount of boat-people that are coming now lol...Just wait! this century will show just how bad its really going to get.

We are geographical blessed, and the rest of the world knows it.

RPG.....your not trying to convince all who are watching, that Senator Bob Brown would (if put into power) would turn the whole system up-side-down? he would be drawn and quartered by the public and be shot down as the worst PM ever in Australia,s history.

However it is very un-likely the tax will go forward, however to have that Green-mindedness at hand, is a must for the human survival, and not to mention.....to be the third person in all this "all you can eat fest" ( Minerals/resources ) , when calling upon commonsensical values, in such a needed time.

http://tinyurl.com/4fd9pwz

http://tinyurl.com/4nkfc55

See by 2020 and all systems return to normal, its all called off.

However, if by 2020 and its not just cycle, I hope you don't live on a island:)

BLUE:)

Well, someone from the god-loving people cult, have just destroyed one of my computers. This is their so-called love. The religious truth of loving people have just given me the evident s I,ve needed. Thanks:) See you in court:)

Got-cha! A trace is now under-way.

I hope you like jail.

Blue

[Deleted. Off topic]

So, Pericles, you say that it is not cricket. The same could be said of Nature's original article, but 'unethical' would be more apt.

I think the second analogy is dodgy, and as I get an oblique mention in the article, I'm happy to buy into the argument. The problem with peer review and global warming is that the global warming hysterics deny that anything that isn't peer reviewed isn't worth discussing. This is like suggesting that because X just scored three successive tons for the Queensland Bulls that we have no right discussing why the selectors left him out of the team, or to call for new selectors if they don't select him.

But of course, while there is a limit to the number of people who can play in a cricket team, there is a much less finite limit to the number of people who can mount a scientific argument. So while you need a selection process for determining who is in a cricket team and can't allow non-selectes players to add themselves to the team, the same doesn't apply to argument.