Has Global warming been a flat-out hoax all along?

[Danno 1,228]

Like many of you, I was shocked to learn of the breaking news concerning hacked Emails which suggest some of the main research on Global warming is built on data which has been purposely faked to build their case.

NOt only that but it clearly indicates a conspiracy to "put the fix in".

Here is just one piece about it, I know detractors will DISCREDIT this guy but never mind there are endless mainstream stories presenting the same basic facts and I can link those too if some want to avoid the story by attacking this one messenger.

If this turns out to be "Climate-Gate" as it is being dubbed, what will this mean for the science community to have been so wrong at the minimum and more likely.... deceptive?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat

the ####### out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”

Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate

Edited November 26, 2009 by Danno

[SuperDuper! 230]

[Ban Hammer 14,619]

a very interesting book that puts more holes in global warming than there are in swiss cheese.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

a very interesting book that puts more holes in global warming than there are in swiss cheese.

This should be welcome news for all the people worried about the effects of global warming. I would think only people who want global warming would object to this (and, oh yeah, people who make a lot of money off the theory)

[Danno 1,228]

a very interesting book that puts more holes in global warming than there are in swiss cheese.

This should be welcome news for all the people worried about the effects of global warming. I would think only people who want global warming would object to this (and, oh yeah, people who make a lot of money off the theory)

Actually, the Money angle is the part that angers me.

If you consider how they have... and intended to drain money from the pockets of not just the common and even poor in developed countries but also the slowing of advancements in developing countries as well.

All the while they are raking it in.

[PlatyPius 5]

I'm a self-described "Librul", but I've doubted the GW thing - as a human-caused event - for years. The Earth heats up, the Earth cools down. Evidence shows that it has happened many times before.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting author. Selection of his work

How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History

Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work

Climate sceptic James Delingpole's cheap shot at Newsweek backfires

Response from 88-year-old war veteran shoots down attempt to discredit letter published in Newsweek in support of Al Gore

For those of you who have not yet stumbled across his oeuvre before, James Delingpole does a nice turn over on the Telegraph blogs as a rent-a-quote climate change sceptic and good all-round right-wing contrarian. He reprises this role each week for the Spectator, which also played host this summer to his penetrating interview with Ian Plimer, the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – the Missing Science. In addition, Delingpole frequently states that he's something of a second world war buff.

Oh, and, lest we forget, he also recently popped up on C4's When Boris Met Dave as a talking head to reminisce about his days spent with the aforementioned Tory rivals while at Oxford University. He revealed that he was aggrieved not to be invited, unlike his contemporaries, into the Bullingdon Club, or "the Buller" as he longingly describes it.

Now that we've established his credentials to the uninitiated, let's move on to a blog he wrote for the Telegraph this week, entitled "How Al Gore's amen corner Newsweek censored his critics". It's largely a riff on a recent Newsbusters blog post about how Newsweek ran a series of letters supportive of Al Gore the week after he appeared on its front cover.

What upset Newsbusters – which says it is the "leader in documenting, exposing and neutralising liberal media bias" – was that Newsweek had admitted that 74% of the letters it had received about Al Gore had been critical of him and his views about climate change. So why, asked Newsbusters (and, in his echo chamber, Delingpole), did Newsweek only publish positive letters the following week?

To give Newsbusters and Delingpole their dues, it does seem to be a legitimate question. But Delingpole didn't stop there: he also aimed his artillery at a US war veteran who wrote one of the supportive letters published by Newsweek saying that his letter was the worst of the lot.

This is the offending letter sent in by "Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida" that Newsweek chose to publish:

Propaganda by global-warming sceptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pyjamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today's anti-science propaganda.

Strong words, indeed. So strong, in fact, that it led Delingpole to imply that the letter's author might, in fact, be a fraud:

Gosh I do hope they [Newsweek] got their fact checkers on to that one. Otherwise, I'd suspect that this was the concoction of some young eco-freak who wasn't even born in '44 using the Holocaust and the respect we grant war veterans to make a cheap political point.

That is quite some slur – even if delivered by inference – to aim at a war veteran, but especially when trying to make your own "cheap political point". So much so that you would have thought that Delingpole – a self-confessed second world war aficionado, remember – might have done some fact-checking of his own. Alas, evidently not – as I discovered when I approached Lee Bidgood Jr to ask him if he wished to respond. This is what he had to say:

The "writer" [of that blog] seems unworthy of a reply. However, for your information: I was born in 1921, took advanced ROTC 1937-41 which made me eligible for a commission when I reached 21 or war was declared. The latter happened first. I was commissioned a 2nd Lt, 2 April, 1942, ASN 0-441619 in the Coast Artillery Corps.

Trained at Camp Hulen, Texas in AA, and was assigned to the 436th AAA BN AW SM Promoted to 1st Lt 11 August, 1942.

Participated in seven campaigns: Fr Morocco-Algeria; Algeria-Tunisia; Algeria-Sicily; Rome-Arno; southern France; central Europe; Rhineland. Two invasions: Fr Morocco; Sicily.

Promoted to Capt. 1 March, 1945. Discharged 4 February, 1946.

The scene I described for Newsweek occurred when our Battalion was in convoy from southern France heading up to the front. A train was transporting concentration camp inmates from somewhere in France to Germany. Our artillery or aircraft had knocked out the engine, derailing some of the cars and spilling the inmates. Newsweek shortened my account of the incident. Much later our unit at war's end was in bivouac in Bavaria, when we smelled death after the wind shifted. It was Dachau.

Since retiring from a middle-level management position (an endangered species) in a large corporation, I have been an environmental activist with prime emphasis on climate change and what we must do about it. I now live in Gainesville, Florida in a retirement complex.

Memo to Delingpole: by all means have a pop at wacko communist alarmists such as myself – I'm sure you will – but probably best to leave 88-year-old war veterans, even if they do happen to be concerned about climate change, out of it next time.

What a fella'.

[Danno 1,228]

Interesting author. Selection of his work

How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History

Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work

Climate sceptic James Delingpole's cheap shot at Newsweek backfires

Response from 88-year-old war veteran shoots down attempt to discredit letter published in Newsweek in support of Al Gore

For those of you who have not yet stumbled across his oeuvre before, James Delingpole does a nice turn over on the Telegraph blogs as a rent-a-quote climate change sceptic and good all-round right-wing contrarian. He reprises this role each week for the Spectator, which also played host this summer to his penetrating interview with Ian Plimer, the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – the Missing Science. In addition, Delingpole frequently states that he's something of a second world war buff.

Oh, and, lest we forget, he also recently popped up on C4's When Boris Met Dave as a talking head to reminisce about his days spent with the aforementioned Tory rivals while at Oxford University. He revealed that he was aggrieved not to be invited, unlike his contemporaries, into the Bullingdon Club, or "the Buller" as he longingly describes it.

Now that we've established his credentials to the uninitiated, let's move on to a blog he wrote for the Telegraph this week, entitled "How Al Gore's amen corner Newsweek censored his critics". It's largely a riff on a recent Newsbusters blog post about how Newsweek ran a series of letters supportive of Al Gore the week after he appeared on its front cover.

What upset Newsbusters – which says it is the "leader in documenting, exposing and neutralising liberal media bias" – was that Newsweek had admitted that 74% of the letters it had received about Al Gore had been critical of him and his views about climate change. So why, asked Newsbusters (and, in his echo chamber, Delingpole), did Newsweek only publish positive letters the following week?

To give Newsbusters and Delingpole their dues, it does seem to be a legitimate question. But Delingpole didn't stop there: he also aimed his artillery at a US war veteran who wrote one of the supportive letters published by Newsweek saying that his letter was the worst of the lot.

This is the offending letter sent in by "Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida" that Newsweek chose to publish:

Propaganda by global-warming sceptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pyjamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today's anti-science propaganda.

Strong words, indeed. So strong, in fact, that it led Delingpole to imply that the letter's author might, in fact, be a fraud:

Gosh I do hope they [Newsweek] got their fact checkers on to that one. Otherwise, I'd suspect that this was the concoction of some young eco-freak who wasn't even born in '44 using the Holocaust and the respect we grant war veterans to make a cheap political point.

That is quite some slur – even if delivered by inference – to aim at a war veteran, but especially when trying to make your own "cheap political point". So much so that you would have thought that Delingpole – a self-confessed second world war aficionado, remember – might have done some fact-checking of his own. Alas, evidently not – as I discovered when I approached Lee Bidgood Jr to ask him if he wished to respond. This is what he had to say:

The "writer" [of that blog] seems unworthy of a reply. However, for your information: I was born in 1921, took advanced ROTC 1937-41 which made me eligible for a commission when I reached 21 or war was declared. The latter happened first. I was commissioned a 2nd Lt, 2 April, 1942, ASN 0-441619 in the Coast Artillery Corps.

Trained at Camp Hulen, Texas in AA, and was assigned to the 436th AAA BN AW SM Promoted to 1st Lt 11 August, 1942.

Participated in seven campaigns: Fr Morocco-Algeria; Algeria-Tunisia; Algeria-Sicily; Rome-Arno; southern France; central Europe; Rhineland. Two invasions: Fr Morocco; Sicily.

Promoted to Capt. 1 March, 1945. Discharged 4 February, 1946.

The scene I described for Newsweek occurred when our Battalion was in convoy from southern France heading up to the front. A train was transporting concentration camp inmates from somewhere in France to Germany. Our artillery or aircraft had knocked out the engine, derailing some of the cars and spilling the inmates. Newsweek shortened my account of the incident. Much later our unit at war's end was in bivouac in Bavaria, when we smelled death after the wind shifted. It was Dachau.

Since retiring from a middle-level management position (an endangered species) in a large corporation, I have been an environmental activist with prime emphasis on climate change and what we must do about it. I now live in Gainesville, Florida in a retirement complex.

Memo to Delingpole: by all means have a pop at wacko communist alarmists such as myself – I'm sure you will – but probably best to leave 88-year-old war veterans, even if they do happen to be concerned about climate change, out of it next time.

What a fella'.

Seriously, all politics aside, what is your take on the story?

[HAL 9000 96]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

[Danno 1,228]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

[HAL 9000 96]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Maybe you should stick to the previous reports on Obama's Turkey Pardon or the one after about the White House State Dinner crashers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Interesting author. Selection of his work

How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History

Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work

Climate sceptic James Delingpole's cheap shot at Newsweek backfires

Response from 88-year-old war veteran shoots down attempt to discredit letter published in Newsweek in support of Al Gore

For those of you who have not yet stumbled across his oeuvre before, James Delingpole does a nice turn over on the Telegraph blogs as a rent-a-quote climate change sceptic and good all-round right-wing contrarian. He reprises this role each week for the Spectator, which also played host this summer to his penetrating interview with Ian Plimer, the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – the Missing Science. In addition, Delingpole frequently states that he's something of a second world war buff.

Oh, and, lest we forget, he also recently popped up on C4's When Boris Met Dave as a talking head to reminisce about his days spent with the aforementioned Tory rivals while at Oxford University. He revealed that he was aggrieved not to be invited, unlike his contemporaries, into the Bullingdon Club, or "the Buller" as he longingly describes it.

Now that we've established his credentials to the uninitiated, let's move on to a blog he wrote for the Telegraph this week, entitled "How Al Gore's amen corner Newsweek censored his critics". It's largely a riff on a recent Newsbusters blog post about how Newsweek ran a series of letters supportive of Al Gore the week after he appeared on its front cover.

What upset Newsbusters – which says it is the "leader in documenting, exposing and neutralising liberal media bias" – was that Newsweek had admitted that 74% of the letters it had received about Al Gore had been critical of him and his views about climate change. So why, asked Newsbusters (and, in his echo chamber, Delingpole), did Newsweek only publish positive letters the following week?

To give Newsbusters and Delingpole their dues, it does seem to be a legitimate question. But Delingpole didn't stop there: he also aimed his artillery at a US war veteran who wrote one of the supportive letters published by Newsweek saying that his letter was the worst of the lot.

This is the offending letter sent in by "Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida" that Newsweek chose to publish:

Propaganda by global-warming sceptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pyjamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today's anti-science propaganda.

Strong words, indeed. So strong, in fact, that it led Delingpole to imply that the letter's author might, in fact, be a fraud:

Gosh I do hope they [Newsweek] got their fact checkers on to that one. Otherwise, I'd suspect that this was the concoction of some young eco-freak who wasn't even born in '44 using the Holocaust and the respect we grant war veterans to make a cheap political point.

That is quite some slur – even if delivered by inference – to aim at a war veteran, but especially when trying to make your own "cheap political point". So much so that you would have thought that Delingpole – a self-confessed second world war aficionado, remember – might have done some fact-checking of his own. Alas, evidently not – as I discovered when I approached Lee Bidgood Jr to ask him if he wished to respond. This is what he had to say:

The "writer" [of that blog] seems unworthy of a reply. However, for your information: I was born in 1921, took advanced ROTC 1937-41 which made me eligible for a commission when I reached 21 or war was declared. The latter happened first. I was commissioned a 2nd Lt, 2 April, 1942, ASN 0-441619 in the Coast Artillery Corps.

Trained at Camp Hulen, Texas in AA, and was assigned to the 436th AAA BN AW SM Promoted to 1st Lt 11 August, 1942.

Participated in seven campaigns: Fr Morocco-Algeria; Algeria-Tunisia; Algeria-Sicily; Rome-Arno; southern France; central Europe; Rhineland. Two invasions: Fr Morocco; Sicily.

Promoted to Capt. 1 March, 1945. Discharged 4 February, 1946.

The scene I described for Newsweek occurred when our Battalion was in convoy from southern France heading up to the front. A train was transporting concentration camp inmates from somewhere in France to Germany. Our artillery or aircraft had knocked out the engine, derailing some of the cars and spilling the inmates. Newsweek shortened my account of the incident. Much later our unit at war's end was in bivouac in Bavaria, when we smelled death after the wind shifted. It was Dachau.

Since retiring from a middle-level management position (an endangered species) in a large corporation, I have been an environmental activist with prime emphasis on climate change and what we must do about it. I now live in Gainesville, Florida in a retirement complex.

Memo to Delingpole: by all means have a pop at wacko communist alarmists such as myself – I'm sure you will – but probably best to leave 88-year-old war veterans, even if they do happen to be concerned about climate change, out of it next time.

What a fella'.

Seriously, all politics aside, what is your take on the story?

What do you mean, politics aside? The article you posted is all politics.

[Pooky 3,930]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Maybe you should stick to the previous reports on Obama's Turkey Pardon or the one after about the White House State Dinner crashers.

But the public perception is what gives the politicians strength (well, maybe ) to act, and the public perception driven by these items of correspondence is that the science, and the scientists involved, is unreliable, even verging on the fraudulent. The fact that the scientists don't deny that the correspondence is real, but simply try to blow off the inquiries in much the same way the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) crowd do on this forum, by condescending dismissal of the inquirers, only lends weight to the perception that there is something very wrong going on here.

If a climate model doesn't work, you don't fudge the figures, or insert external information into it, just to make it work. You change the model until the information you have works. If you don't trust the data, collect it again. If the data remains the same, it's the model that needs to be changed. In this case the ends do not justify the means, the means justify the ends.

What this will do, especially to those parts of the scientific community that support AGW, is seriously damage public confidence in any scientific opinion on climate change of any sort, which, here in the USA, will kill any chance of this administration passing even a reasonable and well thought-out climate protection proposal (i.e. Cap and Trade is so dead it's already in the crematorium).

So, the health of the scientific community means jack-sh*t, if the public don't believe a word they say. On this subject, the scientists need the public to understand and trust the information for anything substantive to happen as a result. And they are failing, dismally.

[Danno 1,228]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

This has already spilled into the lap of politicians who were welcoming this "gift".

DOn't forget.... Monica-gate got limited coverage by mainstream news (some had the story first but sat on it).

we shall see.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The scientific community is just fine. Doing science.

Platy- yes, indeed. Change is built in to the system, as is the overall and real effect humans have added to the system.

I think it is clear to nearly all, the problem is, they are doing politics as well and therein sits the problem.

So Hal your take is "no big deal"?

The only place(s) this 'issue' pops up is on non-scientific discussion boards and overgeneralized news reports. That says enough in itself. Maybe that's what you mean by 'all.' Hence, that says a lot more about people's comprehension of the actual science itself. Not much substance in that debate, I'm afraid.

Hal you are not paying attention... or your head is in the sand again.

The US intelligence and military community has identified climate change as a serious national security issue. Do they have their heads in the the sand, too? Why do you hate the military?

Edited November 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog