What is hidden is the "Scientific" data that supports a particular Liberal cause, but, it is "Un-hidden" just in time for Elections, and with no time to defend or verify. Dirty Politics, Special Agendas and Interests, and Personal rights are all in question when Honest Scientists are questioned and libled, and rotten, bought, Science is accepted at face value.

Don't believe me? Check out any Western Rancher's Property rights. I, for one, not a big farmer but a country homeowner, fell under the "Special law's" for Wetlands. I had 5 partially wooded acres that held my home and three horses. I purchsed this land for this reason. HOWEVER, after I had been there for 16 months, I wanted to "Upgrade" my water/irrigation system. I was forced to PAY for an "Environmental" study that involved a group of 2 "Experts" walking across my land. They determined my land was a "Wetland" because, even though it was mostly sloping hillside, the tracks my Horses left after heavy rains held water for three days or more, it was indicative of land that would support non-aquatic species that live in damp areas. The law took my personal and property rights, I was out $1200.00, and was told that to make ANY change in the current land form/structures would be a violation of Federal Wetlands Law, and be fined up to $10,000.00/6 months in jail for EACH OFFENSE, or, PERCIEVED offense. Me, I sold out and left, I could not live under such Communist values, and now rent a small Apartment, where if I'm lucky, won't "Violate" any percieved rules. Greenies just plain lie and suck. Money talks, the poor working man walks, we have no rights.

I hate to admit it but it gives me some sick pleasure to see Conservatives being forced to deal with the absolute intransigence of reality on its inexorable march toward the grim and implacable consequences of anthropogenic global warming that now doom the planet’s biosphere. They always seem to think that everything is just politics and spin and liberal conspiracies. They deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change because it means that the natural world is imposing its own limitations and sanctions on global industrial capitalism, sanctions that cannot be spun, nor frightened into submission by willful ignorance, inane lies, or contrarian propaganda. And worst of all, nature, as some have recently pointed out, is a liberal in this matter—and ay, there’s the rub!

“Listen, and understand! Reality is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until we are dead.”

….paraphrased (but only slightly so) from Kyle Reese in The Terminator

Oh c'mon people, grow up! This is not a Communist plot and it has nothing to do with politics. We shouldn't make this a political issue. I work at a very conservative and Republican university and all the faculty/researchers believe in global warming...the evidence is overwhelming! It doesn't even matter any more who or what caused it...the fact is that it's happening all over the planet. If you travel as much as I do, you not only see it but the local people tell you how much nature is changing more than ever. One person's data isn't going to make a difference.

People need to ask themselves the real question here. Even if man made climate change is real, why do governments need to make money off of it? If climate is the real concern, then take measures to regulate, not make an exchange system that you profit from, and that lets you dictate who gets to pollute and how much. This science is put on a pedestal by our governments so they can use it as an excuse to grab power and to make money and to take the money out of the free persons pockets. I dont see the government dumping the same amount of money into science that disproves man made climate change, and that is telling. No, I dont trust these people one bit...

akfortytexan - The same way governments made money off of all the man-made activities like producing oil that caused the global warming in the first place. Governments and companies are greedy and if there's money to be made they'll find a way to do it. The good news is that the industries created from global warming could actually create jobs for people and would be good for the economy.

The data should be made public, allow the critics to look at it and give their opinion, this is how science has always worked.

There are 6 data streams folks, if you say this data stream has been tainted you have to explain the other 5 data streams with the same results.

I think a few of you are missing a few facts in this discussion. #1 There is a larger group of scientists that dispute the "global warming" as newer models show cooling btw. They just aren't as vocal as the govt sponsered scientists. #2 Where the data was collected is a MAJOR problem. More than 50% of the weather data stations around the world do not meet the standards. By this I mean weather data stations that were once in rural locations are now on top of buildings surrounded by parking lots or other "heat sinks" that reflect heat thus skewing temperature data. Not that true MSNBC crowds will want to consider those facts.

Billie: you're full of crap.

As explained by Wikipedia, since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, world balance does not exist. Saying that the USA and USSR super-powers kept the world in check. What? So now many are getting behind this Global Governance concept. I started looking through the internet for Global Governance information. In the following video done on a study of Global Governance, you will notice, at the first, a famous name on it. The name keeps popping up in common with Global Governance. George Soros.That is right, the billionaire, George Soros. Obama sent $2 BILL of our tax dollars to Brazil for Petrobas along w/Soro's 9 Billion. You libs and dems out there had best get a clue. You have put the ENEMY WITHIN in OUR White House. You're fools at best. This guy's entire background is Muslim/Marxist and he is dismantling our country just as fast as he can because unless he gets the illegal vote, which is why he'll push ammnesty, he's OUT but we need to get him OUT sooner.

An independent report into the leak of hundreds of e-mails from one of the world's leading climate research centers on Wednesday largely vindicated the scientists involved, saying they acted honestly and that their research was reliable.

apparently some don't want the facts and continue to chide the propaganda.

What the hell does having a week of 100 degree weather have to do with global warming? It's called a weather pattern with low pressure. There hasn't been a significant change in the weather. Some years are good and some are bad. We have had natural climate changes. The dust bowl was natural. If you look at record hi and record low temperatures some of them are way back in the early 1900s. Plus we didn't have good records back before then. Global Warming is for zombies.

...and what exactly does "largely vindicated" mean? I mean it's just like statistics...you can spin interpretation with how something is presented (or omitted).

This story just reinforces the undeniable fact, that as long as "Science" is funded by special interest, whether Big oil or Sierra Club, the result will be "tuned" to keep the check writers happy

As usual, weagleweagle, uses the paradigm: If one weather station is out of compliance then all the data from all the weather stations is false.

Data is data, analyze it, come up with models, add to it, but eventually you get facts.

Al "Multi-million dollar mansion" Gore buys a totally inefficient, non-GREEN house right next to the ocean that he proclaims will be flooded. Obama keeps the White House warm enough in the winter to grow Orchids in but Cap & Tax is a must for another self proclaimed CRISIS!!!!

When those that claim there's a crisis start acting like there's a crisis, I'll believe in the crisis.

Russell's report rejected that conclusion, but did say that the resulting graph — which graced the front cover of the World Meteorological Organization's 1999 report on climate change — was "misleading" because it wasn't explicit enough about the way in which the underlying data had been chopped and spliced together.

"data had been chopped and spliced together." That leads me to believe the data was being manipulated to support their claims. If the data was solid, this would not have been needed!

Well how many people know that the EPA is now making dairy farmers with in excess of X head of cattle develop SPCC plans in the event that there's a milk spill as they have now classified MILK as an oil? Thanks Sierra club and intellectuals at the EPA.

a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."

Sounds like the Obama administration.

weagle, can you site the paper(s) saying that a climate model showed global cooling? I'm assuming that you trust what climate models say since you're willing to jump on that one, so do the other dozens of models that predict global warming not mean anything to you?
Also, whose "standards" do you reference when you talk about thermometer placement? And there are algorithms which adjust overly hot temperature readings to account for things like the urban heat island effect. So the raw temperature data is often decreased to account for overheating.

Eric...so they only used data from 2? Instead of relying on MSNBC to tell you everything, do you read any other sources? Did you miss when NASA finally admitted their sattelite used to measure temperature data and estimate the amount of ice at the poles was producing false data?

Why hide information if you don't have something to hide? Because idiots who don't know anything about science use any doubt as proof that the subject is wrong. Like the dope who said on here that it's just like the stuff about evolution. The only doubt about evolution is when did christians stop evolving! If you want to be stupid just don't listen to smart people, like the worlds most eminent scientists. You will achieve your objective of being an ignorant, selfish and generally laughable person.

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HELP!

AGW involves the livelihoods of BILLIONS of people and should be addressed in only the most frank and certain terms. Then I read this.

"carefully worded report."

"it did say he had pushed colleagues to delete e-mails that he thought might provide ammunition to skeptics"

"consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."

a "trick" used to "hide the decline", the resulting graph was "misleading"...

"found a tendency to answer the wrong question or to give a partial answer"

"criticized the university for being "unhelpful""

and,

"honesty as scientists are not in doubt,"...

um...

um...

ARE YOU F**ING KIDDING ME!? How are regular people who understand straight talk supposed to interpret that? It is condescending at best.

Global warming and global cooling will happen (there have been at least 6 ice ages) again, but to what degree man influences nature is the real issue.

Are we speeding up the process of thousands of years by 5 years or 50 years?

The volcano in Iceland had a great big "carbon footprint" and it was of nature, not man.

Ryan, see the addresses below for an example, but it's just more proof of who do you believe and why? NOAA would be the ones that set "standards" for weather data station placement, which they've ignored in recent history.

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/4th-year-of-global-cooling-noaa-says/

http://www.climatecooling.org/

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/global-cooling-scientists-warming/

I always get a kick out of reading these blogs. Its kind of like reading the comics. They have these crap stories on crap investigations that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things because it wouldnt change anything anyways. Billy D, you are good at using big words but your obviously not good at researching things and lack much common sense. For all of you chicken littles out there, the sun is what warms the planet. There are high solar activity periods and low periods. The earth temp has shown the exact same trend, this goes back further than the gore global warming model (1862). Subjective research will always show the result you want and that is what Gore and his pseudo scientists have done. Then they create this following as if it were a sports team and everybody will fight for their team to the end even if they are the worst team in the league. What a joke humanity is. You probably also believe increased taxing will help the problem as well. Just like cows lining up to the slaughter house, so will you stupid people be led. I think most people today are the missing link between ape and humans. Evo forgot quite a few knuckle draggers. How about somebody bring some good ideas to support their debate? More than welcome to hear that. I think Considering how stupid and sheep like people are, Im gonna do the earth a favor and spin my tires in my 12mpg V8 and hope that gore was right. Haha, suck my CO2!

Bruce:

You're no smarter than the person that just watches TMZ instead of the news if you all you do is follow without questioning. So the same people that now claim milk is an oil and hazardous if spilled on the ground are to be trusted to be all knowing? And what is eminent about these scientists other than that their the world is ending fraud? You assume they are the most intelligent scientists bc Al Gore told you and MSNBC told you, etc. What about all those other, I guess, dumb scientists that use data from NOAA that shows cooling the last 4+ years? Oh they didn't mention they didn't show data past 2006? Or a number of the other inconvenient details?

Why hide data? Because if it is incomplete and hasn't been processed, the "critics" will take it and show that it is proof that global warming does not exist. The hiding of data was an effort to silence those people until scientific conclusions could be made and reviewed. Why? because this has happened in the past. The "republican" media, funded by the large corporations who have the most to lose, spin the media machine to churn out whatever spin they need to convince their listeners that there IS no global warming. All they are doing is hurting the cause and humanity in the process, for their own agenda. This disgusts me. The fact that people will listen to only what they want to hear to prove themselves correct is bad citizenship. Listen to all sides of the story then make your own conclusion.

So that's why they "showed" their data through Al's movie? I guess we all think the stimulus worked too. And that if we just let our govt, regardless of party, make all the decisions for us we'll be better off. Give me a break. What exactly do you do for a living b/c I'm always amazed by how those that do so much work related to science (sarcasm) are such experts on these types of issues.

I believe in environmental responsibility, but think that whole global warming and climate change theory is a money making scam by those who have a vested interest in selling carbon credits ie. Al Gore, most of our Congress and Senate, and certain companies like GE which just happens to own MSNBC.

During the 70s and 80s they were predicting another ice age due to the rising carbon levels, now we are going to melt. It is the politics of fear in pursuit of the almighty dollar and nothing more.

I was in a Green Sustainability class this past winter quarter. We had a guest speaker straight back from Copenhagen conference. He is a PhD. Professor and he gave us a nice powerpoint presentation complete with "scientific data" that showed (he used the word "proved" ) that global warming was indeed happening locally (midwest). He showed data trends for temperature increase, rainfall increase, days above 100 degrees, and on and on. On each graph he supplied us with the coefficient of correlation (R squared for you regressionists) and in every case R2 was below 0.1 meaning the conclusion is very weak based upon the data. (R squared is between 0 and 1 and if it is near one it is a perfect correlation and if it is near zero it does not have a correlation to the data.) Scientists largely accept data above 0.8 as a solid correlation. So here was this guy trying to sell me that his data proved global warming with an R2 of 0.08. Absurd.

On one particular graph he showed that the state of Iowa was receiving 9 more inches of rainfall per year than it did in 1850. But a closer look at his data showed a stairstep increase in rainfall from 1959 to 1960 of 8 inches. The trend from 1960 to 2010 showed the rainfall had actually decreased 1 inch per year. So wait a minute, what happened in 1959? Iowa added meteorological stations which collected more information. There is no other explanation since Mother Nature seldom throws step functions at the environement (never?).

Now don't take my comments as I am anti global warming. The glacial melts throughout the world are evidence enough. But consider this...

...if we cannot measure global warming with certainty, how will we know we are being effective with our carbon mitigation methods? This is a fundamental problem to be considered by the environmentalists.

And lastly, to people like Al Gore who make huge profits from all things Green, you are not helping your case by making millions in the process. My father always says that if someone is profitting then they have an agenda and must be considered compromised.

I will give a great example...Michael Moore had a choice to make two movies. One that was complimentary of George W. Bush's handling of 9/11 or one that was harshly critical. The first would not be seen by anyone and the latter made Mr. Moore millions of dollars. Hard to take his film seriously upon that realization.

Joe-903244, the dust bowl is an example of a man made environmental disaster. the region had originally be covered in drought resistant grass that kept the soil in place during previous droughts. humans came along and ripped up all that grass and grew crops that weren't drought resistance. so when a major drought came along it turned into a major disaster that affected parts of the country that hadn't ever been affected before.

They did no such thing. If you read the multiple reports issued on the fake controversy, you'll see that they hid nothing. They simply refused to give their entire data sets to politicians, not scientists.

No information was ever hidden. The information wasn't even THEIRS - they retrieved it from a publicly-available source!

Robert Bruce-1779000

why hide information unless you got something to hide

**********

Let me give you an idea of who's hiding the information, Robert.

http://climateinsiders.wordpress.com/

This is an elite anti-Global Warming website that is dedicated only to people who run anti Global Warming websites. As soon as you get on climate insiders home page you are greeted by a blunt statement, "Nothing to see here, move along". This is the old policeman joke where, at the scene of a crime, with members of the public crowded around, the cop tells you to do just that.

Their purpose, in their own words:

"It is a private, protected discussion group. It is not visible to search engines nor to prying eyes."

This secret site is extensively used by people like Anthony Watts of http://wattsupwiththat.com/ who use their files as sources of images and graphs that are supposed to be from NASA, NSIDC (National Snow and Ice and Data Center) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association).

When you go into Watts site, however, and find his images and charts, particularly Ice Concentration Images and Ice Extent Charts, you'll find that 90% come from Climate Insiders and not from the easily available primary sources. All you have to do to verify this is to move your cursor to the image or chart, right click and do a "view image info" search.

Why would he get images and charts from these official agencies from a highly secretive source when it could be gotten easily from the original Government agencies? Because they're fake. Climate insiders is a clearing house of fake evidence and information for use by so called "Skeptic sites"

I know that they are fake because I've cross referenced them with the originals from NASA, NSIDC and NOAA. Furthermore Anthony Watts, who runs the foremost anti Global Warming web site, was seriously humiliated when he posted charts from climate insiders and had to offer a retraction.

In another situation one of his posters called him out for using several images that were not proper in coming to the conclusion the Skeptics wanted to:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/the-importance-of-concentration/#comment-423931

Don't take my word for it. Just link above and after reading what the poster has to say scroll up and start right clicking on those first three official looking charts and images.

NOW ROBERT, ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION YOU POSED FOR EVERYONE ELSE, "WHY HIDE INFORMATION UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?"

So you find a blog that is by invitation only, and decide that is the one true source of anti warming thought.

How does that work? Why didn't you post the entire statement on the site:"

It is a private, protected discussion group. It is not visible to search engines nor to prying eyes. It’s purpose is to give us a search-able post and thread system to give all of us far flung professionals a place to try out ideas, post graphics, ask questions, ask for reviews, and plead for help in projects of importance. It is not intended to replace email as a way to alert everyone of something happening, such as what Mr. Morano does, but rather you could think of it as an ongoing climate seminar in a safe zone. Membership is by invitation only.

This is a free and open forum, all participants will have equal rights to post new threads and to comment. There is no moderation. This forum will run independently of me 24/7.

This is something like a blog, but it is geared specifically for keeping a group of people in touch. My thinking here is that many in the AGW are very socially networked. Skeptics, being the minority, and far flung, don’t have that advantage. I’m hoping this will help us work more as a “team with a common goal” than as individuals."

In other words, anyone can join(just as Newsvine) with the only difference being the site has no moderator. The guy who started it doesn't claim it's anything other than a blog. He's wrong about one thing though...The skeptics are not the minority. If we were, the proponebts wouldn't have to answer for their deceptions, and their agendas would already be the law of the land.

Robert Cascadden,

It is usually the case that when a response is made in bad faith that it specifies some point of secondary importance and leaves the substance of the matter untouched.

What I originally replied to was Robert Bruce statement, "why hide information unless you got something to hide".

I responded by pointing out not merely its secretiveness, which already indicates a double standard on the their part, but, more importantly, their FRAUDULENCY .

As you can see, in my post above, I went through elaborate explanation as to how to verify that these images and charts that Anti Global Warming Propagandists are trying to pass off as Nasa's information are actually being filtered through a secondary source. No response from you.

I might as well be pulling Government statistics out of my posterior and passing them off as legitimate in an attempt to fool the Public.

So why don't you have the courage to respond to the essence of what I said, namely that your information is being filtered through a secretive organization that produces faked versions of NASA information?

As you mind controlled dupes of Oil Corporate psychopaths have, in your eternal hypocrisy applied to others, let it be applied to yourselves:

"why hide information unless you got something to hide"

How did you come to the conclusion that Anthony Watts' blog is "the foremost anti Global Warming web site..."?

It's a blog, nothing else.

Don't be so defensive HAHAHHAHA! I guess you guys have to be though. Since all of your whacky claims of armaggedon have been proven false for the last 40 years.

You guys are like the doom and gloomers who used to shout about the end of the world back in the stupid ages. It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now.

Robert Bruce

When you go out to the referenced website you see the data or graph. The displayed stuff is stored on the Climate Insiders site for a permalink.

Just typical AGW, climate trick spin- Jones methodology.

Spin harder, maybe you'll catch some ignorant newbes. But those of us who have studied the real science know the pseudo gravy train crap from the real McCoy.

The fact is, large financial moguls who can make money of us schmoes will push anything that flies with the public. Bureaucrats for power, campaign and personal funding, corps and investors for a quick buck.

The subprime fiasco is a good example as it cuts across party line and the big financial firms made hand over fist. They dumped their volatile mortgages on those investors who where gullible enough to buy the toxic derivatives and then get more money by bailouts from the Feds. Makes Madoff an amateur to these guys.

Voters got scammed way back when income tax became law and they pawned social security off as big govmint is concerned about all you schmoes. AGW is no different. Read the "Creature from Jekyll Island" find out what's really happening. The green revolution is just a new derivative to them.

Hey Mike infidel, you left out that big cold spell between the present and past warm bubbles. Where do you get your science, Algore comic books?

villabolo: Your friend r.gates was called out for being very misleading:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/the-importance-of-concentration/#comment-423954

So while you're at it you should ask to see Obama's "real" birth certificate and proof that US government didn't arrange the demise of the WTC. Oh, and the second shooter (JFK), Roswell aliens, etc.

And most people who distrust science are whores to Big Religion and its political wing, the Republican Party.

Impossible to tell them facts, however meticulously documented, that conflict with their dogma.

Follow the money indeed. Let's look at who's behind the ridiculous denial of the fact that humans are continuing to accelerate global warming. (Hint: See #5, below).

This nation used to trust fact more than rhetoric and hysteria. I love America, but I'm increasingly sick of Americans.

Thank you, Dave, exactly my thoughts. Don't confuse the global warming deniers w/ the facts... screw future generations and the other creatures we share this planet with. The East Anglia "scandal" was their excuse to not have to debate the facts. This is indeed about big oil and big delusion, aka big religion.

RonFromNM

What a crock... let me guess, you like Glenn Beck. Science is science, it's peer reviewed, and the scientists on all sides are of all different viewpoints - hence, the peer review.

Al Gore is chairman and founder of GIM, Generation Investment Management, which will trade carbon permits on the Chicago Carbon Exchange. (See http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663) Gore will make billions if Cap & Trade passes in the US and companies start trading carbon emmissions rights. That's where the money is. Gore's public face of caring for the environment and global warming is a facade. He doesn't give a rip. His personal carbon footprint is huge including private jets and multiple mansions (he recently bought a new 9000 sq. ft. mansion in California). The inconvenient truth is that Al Gore is a fraud and is using the environmentalists as his minions to personally enrich his bank account.

Which is exactly the problem, Tarc. I can't fault them for doing their own research and wanting it read. But they also tried to stonewall skeptics from publishing their research, and discussed ways to keep the literature one-sided. They celebrated the death of a skeptic and joked about taking out a hit on another. That's not science. If their research is solid, it should stand up to researchers who doubt.

And unfortunately, science is not science to some people. The scientific method makes for great science, but a lot of researchers now are starting with a conclusion and constructing research to support it. That's not science. And a lot of these "scientists" were hired and paid by groups wanting specific results.

I'm not sure about global warming. I think there is truth to climate change, but we know too little about it, and what's out there is driven too much by activists, not actual science. And the scientists involved have admitted in the past that even if we do spend trillions of dollars trying to adjust the way the world works, there's no way to know if it will make a difference.

Just so you know, I am a published author in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals. I know enough about how that process works, and the way some of my colleagues do their research, to know that just because it's in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't make it accurate or even science. Scientists are far from infallible, even if they will never admit it.

Please, one of you tree huggers, answer this:

If we have evidence that there have been "Ice Ages" and that tropical areas have previously reached closer to the poles than they currently are then why must it be man-made global warming? Far more evidence points to the natural cycles of the Earth, especially given the skeptical nature of these "scientists". Remember when the Earth was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe with the Sun revolving around Earth?

Are any of you scientists? Do you know what scientists go through to do their research? Do you know how much peer-review takes place to make sure people don't misrepresent or manipulate their data? Yes, like in any field there are probably unscrupulous people who only care about the money. Most of those people that I know work for big, oil, chemical and pharma companies where all the money is. I'd be careful about those drugs you take because so many clinical trials are paid for by the very companies that are making the drugs...can you say conflict of interest, folks? Unless you're a scientist, you have no idea what you're talking about here.

It was the religous dictators that were persecuting the scientists for saying aloud that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

You darn sure skipped school alot. Or you went to school in Texas. Whichever it was you are an IDTENTEE.

If we have evidence that there have been "Ice Ages" and that tropical areas have previously reached closer to the poles than they currently are then why must it be man-made global warming?

You are oversimplifying the conclusion drawn from the evidence. The data show that current climate change can't be explained by natural forces alone.

Remember when the Earth was flat and the Earth was the center of the universe with the Sun revolving around Earth?

You mean 2001-2008? When stem cells were babies, tax cuts for the rich were good for the economy, healthcare was a privilege and humans were spontaneously created in their current form by Jay-zus? Trying to forget, but yes. I remember.

Global climate and man made Global warming are not mutually exclusive.

The Earth will go through regular cycles, and clearly CO2 increases the warmth of the earth.

Voice of Reason - unfortunately, you aren't the voice of reason! It was the religious Christian clergy that persecuted the scientists for saying the Earth was round and that the Sun was the middle of the solar system not the Earth. Scientists have always been persecuted. The religious Christian clergy didn't believe Darwin, either. It wasn't until science found fossils millions of years old and evidence of evolution that religion lost control over that one, too.

Wow, all these people using reason and logic.

You forgot one thing: every planet in the solar system is warming, not just earth.

Logic only allows you to be wrong with authority.

There is WAY too much money tied up in this. Huge grants are awarded to "climate scientists". It's all smoke and mirrors. If you look at Al "ManBearPig" Gore's lifestyle, you can see that he has no real concern for the earth, just for the money to be made. Mansions, "greening" his mansion so it now uses 10% more electicity, private jets, SUV's.

To reduce the so called Global Warming (opps-I mean Climate Change), we'll all be living in caves and eating raw food. Oh yeah-don't exhale either, since that produces carbon dioxide. Gee. I thought I learned in 5th grade that plants needed CO2 to survive and the gave off oxygen. Hummmmm.

Thats it, just keep denying reality and scientific fact-

Don't worry about it- chances are you will be dead before the real hell starts, let your kids deal with it...

The willful ignorance and short sightedness you and the others here display is breath-taking...

How is it scientific fact, when most scientists say it is not so? What is it about CO2 that you think is a pollutant? Without it, everything dies, and does so very quickly. Water Vapor is the prevailing "greenhouse gas". Should we get rid of water?

lilbear68

it pretty much boils down to most scientists are whores to their funding source

almost impossible to get answers with out a slant or bias

it was said long time ago and it still holds true 'FOLLOW THE MONEY' its the real bottom line

**********

Yes libear, do follow the money. Except that people like you, who mindlessly slander others do not seem to be capable of counting the money.

Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers have contributed at least 50 million dollars in the past several years to a wide variety of institutions that speak out against Global Warming.

Now do the math. 50 million dollars divided into 200 million American minds equals ? ? ?

Yes Libear, think of that next time you pull out a quarter out of your pocket. It won't buy you a candy bar but it will easily buy you an American mind, your mind. Minds are cheap.

FOLLOW THE REAL MONEY.

By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 34% of these scientists work for the Federal Government.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm#emply

Yes, villabolo, follow the money, your money (if you actually pay taxes, that is) & my money, as it flows through the hands of politicians to the "researchers" who provide an air of legitimacy to the agenda of the politicians...

I don't think it's about ignoring facts. It's about hiding facts, distorting facts, and drawing conclusions that are not supported by facts. These are the true dangers. Corrupting science, and then saying, well it was misleading, but so what? is just not acceptable. Don't you want the truth? You don't get the truth when you are being misled, and that is what the report states.

casualcomment: What the report boils down to is that the facts are clear: humans are continuing to accelerate global warming. The missteps here were not related to the validity of the underlying data. They were inexcusable breaches of scientific protocol, especially because they give credence to the ignorant and dangerous claim that there's nothing we can do about global warming, so oh well, let's have business as usual. But the panel's conclusion, like every review before it, showed that the core data are sound, and show clearly that climate change is heavily influenced by human behavior. That is what Natalie meant by ignoring facts. Ironically, you ignored that fact in your response.

These scientists make it sound like us humans are soley responsible for global warming. To me, it's like a huge advertisement for "green" industries. I don't have a problem with any "green" industry, but don't mislead the public into believing this is all our fault. It isn't. Nature has a hand in global warming as well.

In my opinion, the earth is in a natural cycle. Look at the 70's...the earth was actually cooling then! Didn't we have the same amount (or even more) pollutants coming from our cars and industry back then as we do now? What about the effects of the Industrial Revolution? We were more polluting during that time because we didn't care what we were doing to the environment back then. Wouldn't you think all that pollution would have caused warming in the 70's instead of cooling? This is why I think this is a scam.

Scientists have the upper hand in this argument because we the public will believe anything that is stated "scientific fact"...

3400 observations 250,000 + variables and an adjusted rsquared of .345 isn't a real model!

The model isn't worth used toilet paper.

Most scientists whe agree with global warming are getting paid for their opinion, as well, in government grants, by environmentalist groups, etc. Just because critics are in the oil industry doesn't make it right to corrupt the data to favor your position. That's just not science. Do you like being misled? The report says you were misled. And not by the oil industry, this time....

At least try to be intelligent before opening your mouth. Over 9,000 American scientists have debunked man-made global warming using the same information that these few scientists have asserted is the truth. Over 650 U.N. scientists have debunked man-made global warming. They are certainly not in the pay of oil companies. There is global warming but its a natural trend of the earth. The Sahara desert used to be a tropical jungle at the time people lived there. The people had to move. They did not cause the global warming. Just because you blindly listen to the Liberal media, doesn't mean you can't look things up yourself and find the truth before opening your mouth.

CMJ - this is simply a bald-faced lie. Cites please? The fact that human are causing global warming is a long done conclusion - only a few freaks bought by the religious right are still objecting. Even a moron can see what's happening.

Mr. Samuel Long;

Well, Jaws, you have a way to prove your allegation? The data and national science are not in your court on this one, even the UN scientists back off on the "Man Made" arguement.....

Tarc, long done conclusion? Seriously? like evolution right? except we still call evolution a theory because there's no proof. What I want to know is why every global warming nut focuses on the same data that was already published.

No proof of evolution? Are you f'ing retarded?

No he's not. WE're still looking for several links that would be needed to prove the theory. It's probably partially fact but there are missing pieces to the puzzle that many scientists are still looking for, well actually all scientists in any area of research related to evolution are hoping to stumble on the answers.

Ted, You and Sam are so ignorant of reality, it is laughably pathetic. The theories of evolution and quantum mechanics are the TWO MOST PROVEN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES we have today. Start looking in the right places for your info. It is amazing to me how scientifically illiterate Americans are. Pathetic and embarrassing. I bet the both of you have no idea of the scientific method and certainly no technical degrees. Pathetic and disturbing.

Well Sammy, I am not in the oil industry, nor do I work for the govmt. I do have a scientific education and background. And I am a skeptic. From everything I've read, even if the whole world (not just the US) went back to pre revolutionary war total carbon output we still could not stop global warming. Seems to me we are focusing on the wrong thing. Rather than taking a chicken little "the sky is falling" approach why is not our focus on adapting to survive a naturally occuring cycle that man may or may not have more than a mere percentage of impact. 20 years ago the dinosaurs were considered to be overgrown lizards now they are not considered so. Why? Because more data has come out and scientists realized they didn't know as much as they thought. The truth of the mater is before the turn of the last century no-one really tracked climate data. Even then global tracking didn't really start until after WWII.

So, scientists, who are entirely human and enjoy getting their paychecks which are based on producing results that make them look smart thus justifying their paychecks, take about 60 good years of data and extrapolate back millenia, using tree ring data and ice layer data to identify yearly or even decade by decade variations in climate, Purlease! Then when their extrapolated models don't match the results of the real world they just throw out data to make their model look good. Right!! It's an aberation. Right!! I think "trick" was the term used by the scientists. And a very appropriate term.

The panel who reviewed the scientists reports and remarks was stocked completely with people who already agreed entirely with the premise of "man is the sole cause of global warming and we had better stop mankind now" philosophy. Of course they are going to vindicate their buddies.

I actually think that it is probably too late to turn warming around to maintain the status quo for humans and the other species of the earth, but should we not try to use less energy, pollute less, procreate less, live better lives for the right reasons vice compete in consumerism, think more critically, laugh more, smile more, realize that those that disagree with us may have a point or two... I could go on and on. We divide ourselves at our own peril. 24/7 media, politicians, some religious leaders, corporations, etc., are expoliting us for their gain and our loss.

Ken in FL and others.

What is pathetic and disturbing to me is the haughty condescending manner exhibited by man-made global warming proponents on Newsvine. They display an unjustified superiority over those who disagree with their belief and arrogantly chide "Are you a scientist?" when they probably are not a scientist either.

This is not only pathethic behavior, but it is also downright rude to ungraciously belittle another human being simply because they do not share your opinion. It is o.k. to disagree with someone, but please have a public discourse on the subject.

If you believe in man-made global warming, state your case and cite your evidence instead of just saying it is a foregone conclusion. Allow your adversary to state their alternative case and provide their opposing evidence.

Try that instead of attacking someone's intelligence.

James: Arrogant and wrong are not the same word. Get over yourself.

Thanks Mike for proving my point.

It sure will be nice when those checks from Big Oil start rolling in. My MS & PhD chemistry, physics, and engineering colleagues and I are going to have the. biggest. party. Ever. Everyone is invited, as soon as we get those checks.

Yeah... it's a weather cycle. A weather cycle where all the ice is disappearing from the Earth. The naivete and deliberate blindness of those who don't want to see is astounding. Global warming IS well established fact and it IS man-made. You don't increase the amount of CO2 by 90x over normal background levels and not have an effect. Keep drinking the KoolAid.

Can you provide any evidence? I'll save the time - you can't. A odd (likely fabricated) anectode isn't going to hold much water.

It is too bad that "Ron" has not thought about this. If he reads a little he might learn some physics. The sun controls 99% of our climate. The volcanos and storms control 99% of that last 1%. Global temperatures were highest in the laST 200 YEARS DURING THE 1930 ERA. (TOO MANY CARS?) Ice is melting to show previous developed mines and settlements in Icelabnd, the site of the volcanic activity. Ice is building to higher levels in parts of both polar areas. Where do some of the bed wetters get their "data" like "earths climate warmer"? It has been COOL:ING since 1997!

LOL, Mike. I suspect my knowledge of physics is a bit more developed than yours considering a bachelor's in the subject and 3 years into a PhD. What cereal box did you get your facts from? I get mine from peer reviewed journals like Science and Nature. Unfortunately, this forum isn't peer reviewed and any unsubstantiated spew is permitted. Global temperatures the highest during the 1930s? Holy crap, I hope you're not breeding.

Thanks for your posts, Ron-794659. Fighting American ignorance and scientific illiteracy is a never-ending task.

If you're a "skeptic", educate yourself at SkepticalScience.com, a legitimate non-partisan site that clearly explains the actual state of the science for non-scientists (which clearly none of you are), on every front, using actual scientific data that has withstood vigorous review. Although many of you are stubbornly impervious to facts, perhaps some here are genuinely interested in the SCIENCE, not the spin. Go ahead, see if your "arguments" stand up to actual scientific data.

Greenhouse gases trap heat. This is science at its most basic, and is undeniable fact. Of course scientists don't have models to accurately predict the impact of climate change. We can't predict hurricanes or tornadoes either, but we do have a lot of info about how they form. Ice core samples prove that this type of climate change takes millenia. We're losing our ice sheets in 50 years. This is not a natural cycle. I don't hold out hope that we'll actually do anything about it, and given the ignorance (not bonafide skepticism) of these posts I doubt we'll get so much as an apology when NY city is under water.

Ron-

Peer reviewed journals sound like a good source of information but this article states that they were keeping dissenters out of the peer review process. That seems to invalidate the peer review doesn't it? I wish there was a way to get the honest truth out of the whole business. But it seems like it's become too hot of an issue for people to look at it calmly. Also, if the scientists only kept data that agreed with their views and threw out the rest, how does that help the process?

"During the 70's they claimed that we had another ice age coming."

No. "They" didn't. Unless you can tell us who "they" are and cite a peer-reviewed paper to support your claim, it should be ignored.

Hey Mike...I graduated high school in 1980. The entire time I was in school during the 1970's the coming ice age was taught in school.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/the_next_ice_age.html

Read that and learn. There's a reason people over the age of 30 know about the "global cooling" nonsense. We lived through it, as we did with "global warming", and now "climate change".

I'm sure textbooks, reporters, and the enormous volume of books sold at stores mean nothing. But they are the "they" you asked about. I like this line from the column I linked for you..."The same scientists who cannot predict the weather in Iowa this June confidently tell us that they know just what will happen on Earth in fifty years."

Yep. Can't predict tomorrows weather, but can predict it decades from now.

Ron-794659, you're as amusing as you are "wet behind the ears". "Science" and "Nature" as serious scientific journals? You're kidding, right?

Right, so we should just go on and continue our destruction as if there are no consequences whatsoever.

No. We need to change our thinking. What is so wrong about finding cleaner ways to produce energy? What is so evil about that? I just don't understand people like you.

I'm always fascinated by these hysterics who scream that everyone to their left is bent on destroying America and wrecking everyone's lives. What they never seem able to answer is this: why do you think anyone would do that? What is to be gained? It's obvious what the right gains by lying about humans' effect on climate change, or about evolution, or gay marriage, or any of the other subjects on which they lie, but what is it you think President Obama ("and even some [R]epublicans") actually want to accomplish, and why? These conspiracy theories are always incomplete, because there's no articulable motive present.

Global warming science is fact. What the politicians do with these facts is another matter. This can be an enormous boon to the economy if it is addressed by intelligent, inventive people. As to reducing the quality of life of your children, you may want to step back and think about that one... when arable land is reduced due to arid dustbowl conditions and 50 miles of coastline are underwater, get back to me on your children's quality of life. Short sighted and selfish.

Wow, another Republa-zombie. Perhaps one day you'll wake up. tell me, which party spent the last 30 years hell-bent on destroying the middle class (and creating the current Great Recession)? That would be the Republicans, who, you'll note are richer than ever, and doing quite well though all this disaster.

Tarc;

Ah-hem...The Democrat/Liberal agenda was the law for 40 years, until 1998, when the Repub's finally gained a few. THAT was the year that the American people began to see the light. The Dem/Lib's were the POWER that killed the middle class, the poor, and our FREE way of life. Read a little Political history and get your facts straight. NOT Politically written data, but independant studies not done by Liberal universities. Havard, Princeton, Berkeley are the champions of false data on "Social effects" so their data is automatically in doubt. JFK, LBJ, J.Carter, Both Clintons, AlGore, Obama, that is the downfall of the American Society, NOT the Conservative's or Republicans. This is, and still is Proven, by the mere "Data" supplied during those decades, not the "Revised" data now being foisted upon us, the REAL Americans....

Hey everybody - lookie here - we have a so-called "Real American".

LMAO!

Hey Ray - buddy boy, you go right ahead and cuddle up to Big Oil. They LOVE people like you.

Yes. You're missing the part where you identify some flaw in the data that do exist, or in the reports that have said the obfuscation at issue does nothing to undermine the validity of the data.

Actually, the science is solid and the scientists are reliable. Communicating the science to people that don't have the education to understand it is always problematic. If you notice, 95% of the document of the findings of the committee talk about how solid the work was.

>>Communicating the science to people that don't have the education to understand it is always problematic<<

Thank you, Tarc, my sentiments exactly.

Yeah, it would be good if you knew how to use SAS or even SPSS and ran models yourself. You'd then know the lies. The model is a very poor predictor, period. You wouldn't use it to guess rather it was night or day.

IDIOTS WITHOUT A CLUE. READ THE FREAKIN EMAILS YOURSELF AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION. RESEARCH THE MODEL STATISTICS AND TELL US THAT A LESS THAN COIN FLIP RELIABILITY IS GOOD!

I love this. Us poor dumb nobodies just can't understand why we just had record setting snowfalls during global warming. We're just too stupid to grasp that warming creates colder temperatures.

It's like the Libs telling us we need to pay more taxes because otherwise we'd just waste that money on stuff we don't really need.

Maybe the elitists will figure out the rest of us are not as stupid as they hope.

This is distraction from the real issue that CO2 is effecting climate change. It simply is. The science is elementary and right in front of you. You can't wiggle your way out of it now matter how much you try.

That's a lie that can not be substantiated as there is no scientific proof, only lies and misinformation by the present administration. When people continue to propagate the lie then they to are lairs.

Citizen One - the global consensus of scientists is that humans are profoundly changing the globe, producing global warming. It's perfectly evident in the data; it's perfectly evident to everyone that looks out their window. It's perfectly evident in the historical record. It's fact. Let's move on.

Ok chinook11 and Tarc, I have made my statement and provided a link to a website that has scientific evidence yet both of you have attempted to discredit me and asked me to move on and calling my points a "distraction of the real issue that CO2 is effecting climate change". I have to state that you have made no scientific statements and shown no proof of your climate beliefs that back up your misguided statements. I will ask that all who are viewing this thread to click on the link and make up their own minds and add to this thread if they are so inclined.

Where do "chinook" and others get that baloney about CO2 "science"? There has been no measurable change in CO2 in atmosphere in the last 100 years. It would measure off the scale this year from the Iceland volcano, NOT man made global warming. By the way, most CO2 manufactured in the western world is for YOUR carbonated drinks, bed wetters, stop that! (I have studied alternative energy as an engineer since 1956.)

WHere's the fact. Fill a box with CO2 then fill one with pure O2. Put them in the sun. Tell me which one gets hotter. READ THE EMAILS GET FAMILURE WITH MODELING AND READ THE MODEL DISCRIPTIVES, YOU"LL THEN SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE AND WONDER WHY THEY DON"T ACTUALLY MAKE A REAL MODEL!

. Most CO2 mfr'ed in the western world is for your carbonated drink? The US alone consumes ~21 million barrels of oil per day. Considering the fact of conservation of mass, if this were cleanly burned in a stoichiometric mixture, the result would be H20 and CO2. Do I need to break down the actual masses involved? Hint: it's a tad more than the CO2 used to make soda. You know, the stuff you drink too much of and wet the bed? I'm wasting my time on this forum... it's like arguing w/ the squirrels in the backyard.

Dick Cheney and his cronies at Halliburton caused the volcano in Iceland to explode! Come on Mike-314675! That's the REAL truth! :-)

Citizen - you immediately announce your ignorance by misidentifying which end of the cow the methane comes from (the vast majority is belched out, not farted).

Hence, the Dunning-Kriger Effect is in full force: people that are too stupid/ignorant that they don't even understand that they are too stupid/ignorant on the subject to evaluate it blabber on and on like they have a clue. It's like reading a hundred clones of Glen Beck. I'm just waiting for the tears...

Seriously Tarc, grow up, insulting people on a public blog? if the science is so solid why do you feel the need to defend it so rigorously?

Tarc;

You, sir, prove the point that if the Left doesn't like what they hear, they destroy the messenger, so to speak. You leave out ONE important element to your self-serving politics: We as a species have free will, and that includes who or what we believe or support. The data on the Warming is flawed, the data on MOST things studied is flawed. The data is "Mined" to suit the outcome the sponsor wants, always has, always will.

Get over it, name calling and denegrating those that disagree with you won't change the fact that you, sir, are the one mostly wrong here, just read the thread and weep, son, you and yours have been "Outed" by bad science and the data being proven wrong....Sorry, but sometimes if you don't like the way the game is coming out, you just can't take the ball and go home to pout.

Ray, lighten up, dude. Tarc is right: the morons who refuse to accept reality are very much like the early Catholic Church. The Flat-Earth Society will eventually fall, and with it the idiots like Anthony Watts who will be cowering in basements wimpering at the shocking truth that ACC or AGW or human-induced climate change is real, the science supports it, the consensus is overwhelming, and we'd better get used to the idea of putting our minds and hearts and souls into changing our behaviour. Just because Tarc chose some words that you can't handle doesn't mean he hates you; it just means he wants you and the other deniers to know that he understands that you're all idiots...because, well, quite frankly, you are. Heck, half of you can't even spell or assemble cogent arguments based on scientific fact. The other half just scream and rant about politics like the birthers and the other morons that try to keep the lies alive.

I'm willing to bet that you, Ray, and Sam, and Annie and the rest of the loser/denier club have not read any papers by Trenberth, or Hansen, or Schneider, or Archer, or Grandia, or Santer, or any of the many experts in the various fields that are included in climate change study. You haven't, or your opinion would be to support the science that is being done to help us to understand how we humans are affecting the planet in so many ways.

Maybe it would be better for you to just STFU, like Tarc is recommending, and go do some homework on climate change study before you spout off here and look foolish again.

Just sayin'...

Ray, is this the first time you've read a blog? Some lefties and righties bash each other. It's certainly not the province of one group more than the other. You can attack the models in the report all you want. They're inevitably going to be wrong about a lot of factors given the number of variables they have to consider. That has no bearing on the basics of greenhouse gases trapping heat, which you guys don't like bringing up. It proves beyond reaonable doubt that our activities are warming the planet, however the outcomes and impacts are (sometimes wrongly) predicted. It's like saying War and Peace is a pile of crap because you found a typo.

Tarc, sTv0, separatechurchandstate, you must be on a crusade for your religion! Maybe you should turn off your TV for a few months and spend a little time in studying the classical scientific process of hypothesis and empirical observation, without modeling, homogenization, and pre-determined conclusions. Hansen, Schneider, Ehrlich are religious crusaders of the first order. They make Pat Robertson look like an amateur.

Boy, I can't wait for the check from Big Oil to arrive! I could sure use the extra cash flow to deal with the Cap-n-Tax!

Ray-1033782 - thanks for the great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

getoutmore - Sorry, it's against my religion to prosletize, so that wasn't the case. But you're clearly confused on so many levels. It's laughable that you're suggesting on report, or even a hundred (or three scientists) are on a crusade. I suppose that's your only real frame of reference, but seriously? I'd suggest a name change to needstoreadmore...

The sad truth about global-warming deniers is that they believe when the earth is uninhabitable, their children (meaning descendants) will be in A Better Place (after they die horrible deaths involving starvation, asphyxiation, etc.), and that therefore, destroying the world is just fine. The blather on this board is the combined product of evil liars like James Watt and Tim LaHaye, who believe the greatest thing a human can do is die. Theirs is a culture centered on death, and yes - it is horrifying, and they must be defeated. I do have kids, but even if I didn't, I would want humanity to thrive after I'm gone. (I thought Natalie's comment was kind of short-sighted and callous.)

If you look at the predictions of climate scientists, they are eerily similar to the doomsday predictions in the book of revelations. Christians look forward to the world ending, so no surprise they'd support activities that could bring it about. But they won't ever admit that this was man-made because they want to give credit to their invisible superman. Holy crap we're screwed.

You're right in many ways, Murray, but please remember that the USA is not a monolith. A great many of us know that humans are contributing to climate change, and that we can reverse the process to some extent. (We also know that humans evolved, that the earth orbits the sun, and that the world is, in fact, a sphere.) You have many allies here, who are working to overcome the influence of the short-sighted profiteers and flat-earth theocrats.

Actually, the reason is that a few clever people figured out how to manipulate a certain portion of the US population well enough to ensure that they stay stupid and ignorant and multiply readily. They then use fearmongering and manipulation to drain cash and generate political power as a voting block. These are the people that have come to be in charge in the nation - Republicans and corporate CEOs. They thenselves are relatively stupid, and are blinded by greed and short term gain. *shrugs* When the idiots rule the nation, all you get is idiocy.

Tarc, you are describing the democratic voter to a Tee! They way you spew talking points makes you seem void of any independent thought. So i would say you fit the democrat mold.

Matt and Kalamare. Blind political ideology is one reason you're in the mess you are. There's no such thing as being right all the time. Until you realize this you exhibit a true lack of free will and thinking.

Thanks, MurrayG, for saying what needed to be said. I'm an American, and I'd like punch you in the nose for saying that, but it's true, and that's what's more important. There are some of us Americans who DO understand what we humans are doing to the planet, and some of us are working hard to get the message out with the straight facts, no spin.

We'll keep after it.

Have you noticed that when a Democrat gets upset, they bring in corporate America? Maybe there is a socialist movement after all?

Have you noticed that when a Republican is proven wrong, they call Democrats socialists? Maybe they think the Cold War never ended after all.

As Obama so astutely pointed out, y'all cling to guns and religion. I've not met a conservative who denies this. In fact they're proud of it, as evidenced by Sarah Palin using that line in all her speeches to great applause. They just don't like it when a dem points it out. But this is the means by which the rich white male dominated landscape of the GOP is able to convince people to vote for them when it runs against their best interests.

separatechurchandstate,

Small problem, I reject all religion, especially one's that cry "doomsday" so they can take your/my money! You, my friend, have fallen, hook, line, and sinker for yet another one of those religions! The difference is, it's couched as a religion of "the state" which looks a little too much like both Marxism & fascism for an independent-minded descendant of pioneers who spent his childhood immersed in "developing" countries.

@Matt-416046 - Not being a Dem, but a pragmatic independent, I'd simply say that your assumptions speak for themselves. Dead brains make no sense...

LOL! I actually saw that commercial last night. And yes, I'm serious. It was all about how HEROIC BP is! I... can't even address that level of spin in a coherent way.

Oh, so we should all go back to living in caves and mud huts and forsake all technology developed in the last 200 years so we can appease the great goddess Earth! Didn't China try that in the '50s-'70s? I guess they kinda abandoned that tenet of the religion...

I agree, but many seem only willing to accept their pre-conceived notions in spite of good scientific data. Those who ridicule the outcomes of climate change as well as the causes need to get their heads out of the sand and improve their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren by using fewer fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, Peter, yes - sometimes, they do.

Sometimes they do. Much more often, the data isn't ready for primetime, or is too difficult to expalin. There is no shortage of times when data seems to be contradictory, but later turns out to be perfectly sensible and coherent. Persenting science to non-science people is very, very difficult.

That doesn't excuse the lies.

Well, Peter, that explains the behavior of religious people...

@seriouslypeople42 - What lies? If you read the comment, there were no lies. And the bottom line is the same - humans are producing staggering climate change.

Well apparently majority rules and with our current "throw money at everything, that should stop it," attitude from the top, we will have this opinion...

The reason that the whitewash inquiries matter so much is the dividing line between natural climate variation and change caused by CO2 produced by human activities. If it has been warmer in the past than now, that is evidence that maybe the current warmer temperatures are not so much a crisis as the IPCC and the rest of the warmist true believers claim.

The inquiries go to the heart of the proxies used to say that these are the warmest temperatures since the last ice age. It doesn't take a genius or a climate PHD to know that Greenland was settled by people when it was warmer than it is today, because their graves are buried in permafrost.

Believing the scientists you warmists want to trust so much requires that you deny the historical records kept by the King of Norway, the Chinese researchers who recently confirmed the same previous warm periods, the records in England from the little ice age, and it goes on.

They would not attempt to eradicate history if it wasn't so important to their computer models and desire to call today's temperatures a crisis. The models cannot explain previous warm periods and simultaneously proclaim coming disasters caused by runaway warming.

The inquiries go to the heart of the proxies used to say that these are the warmest temperatures since the last ice age. It doesn't take a genius or a climate PHD to know that Greenland was settled by people when it was warmer than it is today, because their graves are buried in permafrost.

What a marvelously sophistic argument. "Greenland was warm in the past, hence the world isn't getting warmer." Nice confusion of local and global, dimwit.