This hoax was about power and wealth.

The resignations are confirmation of this hoax and the investigations will confirm them.

Before blathering try studying science first.

My favorite healthcare insurance company gets paid a lot of money and they have done a good job for me and my family. No need to government interference.

Stop the absent fest!

The problem is that you guys have been duped by the dishonest news media.

You’re a riot, Alice.

You are so transparent.

Docelder:

I agree with you about the need for facts and that is what we should make every attempt to discern, whatever the outcome may be.

You really are a babe in the woods when it comes to Chemistry and thanks for making the opponent’s point, Goob.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/hockey_debate.pdf

I’m not sure if this link will get you there because it is a pdf file.
There are countless other studies, reports, and scientists that reasonably dispute most of the AGW house of cards, and rather than mention them all, I simply chose to show the fraudulent nature of one of the most prominent. It’s also germane to this particular thread because Mann and his graph are directly tied to the UEA’s CRU, and climategate.

As far as your heavy rainfall in Tennessee, that’s rather anecdotal don’t you think? Extraordinary weather in one small geographic area can hardly be used as evidence of a global trend. YOU are the one who made the snippy remark on this thread that there’s a difference between climate and weather. Try to stay within the parameters of argument that you so frequently demand of others.

You don’t need to lecture me on the complicated nature of the subject, and that there’s much more than meets the eye. It is BECAUSE I understand the infinite complexity of the issue that I realized early on that claims of climate catastrophe based upon computer models were ridiculous. There is no possible way to craft a program that adequately addresses all of the variables needed, and due to the chaotic nature of the subject, it has been proven that no formula or program can possibly predict weather or climate more than two weeks into the future. Chaos destroys the predictions.

The steady rise in man-made CO2 has been relatively easy to measure, but it’s just one of the multitude of variables that need to be considered. The most remarkable and revealing aspect of climategate is that the scientists involved appear to have reverse engineered their climate models to closely parallel a claimed rise in average global temperature to the rise of man-made CO2, in an attempt to prove causation by correlation. In order to create that parallel, they ignored crucial data (Medieval Warming Period), and weighted minor anomalous events. When they finally arrived, through biased manipulation, at a model of temperature rise that was compellingly similar to the rise in CO2, they broadcast to the world that since man was responsible for the rise in CO2, and since CO2 is apparently driving the increase in temp (not proven), man is therefor causing the increase in temp. That was around 10 years ago. The problem is, in the last ten years, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperatures have been falling, which destroys the rather tenuous linkage between temp and CO2 levels. Add to this the fact that temp levels were higher, for far longer, in the MWP than they are now, even though there was much less CO2, and it becomes clear that something else much more influential than CO2 drives global temp changes. More than likely there are influences beyond our ability to affect (the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc.)

Please forgive me if this becomes a double posting, but the spaminator is getting ruthless

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Indeed it is as a lot of us have been saying here before nearly anybody else. But add to this the inception of the Chicago Climate Exchange or the CCX and trace the seed money for the CCX back to Barack Obama when he was with the Joyce Foundation… I think we are beginning to see why he had to be “The One” to do this to us. His thirty pieces of silver being his coveted Nobel Prize and his cushy job with Air Force One as a perk. Enjoy the ride. We are paying for it as will our children and grandchildren.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/hockey_debate.pdf

I’m not sure if this link will get you there because it is a pdf file.

There are countless other studies, reports, and scientists that reasonably dispute most of the AGW house of cards, and rather than mention them all, I simply chose to show the fraudulent nature of one of the most prominent. It’s also germane to this particular thread because Mann and his graph are directly tied to the UEA’s CRU, and climategate.

As far as your heavy rainfall in Tennessee, that’s rather anecdotal don’t you think? Extraordinary weather in one small geographic area can hardly be used as evidence of a global trend. YOU are the one who made the snippy remark on this thread that there’s a difference between climate and weather. Try to stay within the parameters of argument that you so frequently demand of others.

You don’t need to lecture me on the complicated nature of the subject, and that there’s is much more than meets the eye. It is BECAUSE I understand the infinite complexity of the issue that I realized early on that claims of climate catastrophe based upon computer models were ridiculous. There is no possible way to craft a program that adequately addresses all of the variables needed, and due to the chaotic nature of the subject, it has been proven that no formula or program can possibly predict weather or climate more than two weeks into the future. Chaos destroys the predictions.

The steady rise in man-made CO2 has been relatively easy to measure, but it’s just one of the multitude of variables that need to be considered. The most remarkable and revealing aspect of climategate is that the scientists involved appear to have reverse engineered their climate models to closely parallel a claimed rise in average global temperature to the rise of man-made CO2, in an attempt to prove causation by correlation. In order to create that parallel, they ignored crucial data (Medieval Warming Period), and weighted minor anomalous events. When they finally arrived, through biased manipulation, at a model of temperature rise that was compellingly similar to the rise in CO2, they broadcast to the world that since man was responsible for the rise in CO2, and since CO2 is driving the increase in temp (not proven), man is causing the increase in temp. That was around 10 years ago. The problem is, in the last ten years, while CO2 has continued to rise, the temperatures have been falling, which destroys the rather tenuous linkage between temp and CO2 levels. Add to this the fact that temp levels were higher, for far longer, in the MWP than they are now, even though there was much less CO2, and it becomes clear that something else much more influential than CO2 drives global temp changes. More than likely they are influences beyond our ability to affect (the sun, ocean currents, volcanoes, etc.)

There was enough evidence that contradicted everything that Al Glore claimed in his documentary, but a lot of people refused to listen to scientists from the opposition, thinking that they are being paid by greedy interest groups… well La-di-da, turns out the AGW scientists are the only ones doing the lying.

Because the science is not in and there are too many open issues.

There are people who have been making a boat load of money on this.