Slashdot Mirror

Except it isn't.
Click on the items in the long list of old newspaper articles in the references section: http://www.populartechnology.n...
The ministry of truth did not alter and back-date all those old articles.

You're confusing the *global* CO2 with the human-caused CO2. And it's a common mistake, because they are deliberately encouraging that confusion. If you do enough research for yourself (and I recommend that you do, because you won't believe me if you don't), you'll find that 2% - 6% is the accepted range. I just split it at 4% for the purposes of the example. Also...here's 31,487 scientists that say there is no AGW: http://www.petitionproject.org... Plus, these 1000: http://www.climatedepot.com/20... ...and here's 1350+ peer-reviewed papers that say you're wrong: http://www.populartechnology.n...

Yes I do remember that. Here, I will do the 20 sec of google search work for you and give you a link with 200 plus 1970's articles describing the global cooling ice age theory. http://www.populartechnology.n... There was that so difficult.

That shift in scientific thinking happened about a century ago.

Maybe — and first they thought, we are dangerously cooling the Earth.

Presumably you are late to the party.

Your condescending "presumption" is both incorrect and irrelevant to the discussion.

Incidentally, while I note speculation that Kodiak may have been connected by glaciation to the mainland during the last ice age, I'm not finding any information about the last time there was a land bridge.

I heard it from a guide explaining, why Kodiak bears are so similar to, but quite the same as the mainland grizzlies. Like the humans trapped in Tasmania for thousands of years, Kodiak bears used to mate with other grizzlies sufficiently recently to not have become separate species. Contrast them with the pink iguanas found on one of the Galapagos islands — those critters got separated millions of years ago and are already a separate species.

But, whether the islands of the Kodiak were connected to mainland by land or by ice is not very relevant to this discussion — because the ancient disappearance of the ice would've been blamed on human sins by the same shamans just as well.

Should you wish to continue arguing for credibility of today's "climate science", please, follow-up under this other post of mine with the citations I ask for in it.

This is not a serious work. There's too many authors from the Cook et al 2013 study which came up with the bogus 97% consensus claim in the first place.

To outline what was wrong with the 2013 paper, the primary author, John Cook, who incidentally is also the primary author of this current work, already had started working out the propaganda uses of the research before he started the 2013 study, the raters (of which eight of the nine coauthors of that 2013 work are coauthors on this paper) discussed papers and authors in what was supposed to be a double-blind study, there was plenty of bias exhibited by the raters in internal discussions, and a bunch of misclassified and/or ignored papers. A couple of key discussions of these problems can be found here and here.

Bottom line is that the Cook 2013 study was so bad, biased, and predisposed to use as pro-climate change propaganda, that it should have never been published. I consider it outright fraud. Now, he and his fellow coauthors get to contaminate another such survey? That's very foolish.

Ultimately, the problem here is that this is an argument from authority fallacy, written by a primary author, John Cook who has already demonstrated that he is too biased to do credible scientific work.

By that standard all study of human behavior is complete bullshit because there's no standard definition of anything. Even legal terms can mean completely different things depending on cultural context. Just ask the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Or hell take Medicine. Whose to say your sharp pain is my sharp pain?

And the obvious rebuttal is that we can measure human behavior by what people actually do as well as a bunch of other objective criteria (like deaths from cause X), rather than what other people feel they did. You give a couple of examples in your reply that illustrate this point handsomely.

Number one, I've never heard of any school (except some particularly conservative Christian ones) that even tries to figure out a prospective students political beliefs.

Didn't you just spend a considerable bit of time telling me about how things perceived by one person are not perceived by another? Just because you didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. This article describes research that claims enormous bias in social studies (social psychology here):

Unfortunately, new research also shows that academia has itself stopped short in both the understanding and practice of true diversity â" the diversity of ideas â" and that the problem is taking a toll on the quality and accuracy of scholarly work. This year, a team of scholars from six universities studying ideological diversity in the behavioral sciences published a paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences that details a shocking level of political groupthink in academia. The authors show that for every politically conservative social psychologist in academia there are about 14 liberal social psychologists.

Why the imbalance? The researchers found evidence of discrimination and hostility within academia toward conservative researchers and their viewpoints. In one survey cited, 79 percent of social psychologists admitted they would be less likely to support hiring a conservative colleague than a liberal scholar with equivalent qualifications.

Moving on, you then wrote:

Here's the thing, if you turn the problem around and ask the question a bit differently all the moral force. Unless black people are stupider then white people you cannot have a fair college admissions system that results in 18% of the applicants getting 5% of the slots.

What is the point of such speculation when you ignore dropout rate? According to this link, we have comparable enrollment in college between Caucasian and African American, but much lower graduation rates (in six years). 60% of the former group graduates in six years, while 40% of African Americans graduate in six years. That indicates to me that enrollment rates for African Americans are too high and/or too ambitious. It makes little sense to speak of fairness of enrollment, when you ignore fairness of outcome.

When the actual science majors did the work, they got a 3% non-political number, and none of the 97% of scientists who they put in the "thinks anthropogenic global warming is fucking real and we should do something pretty fucking Al Gore-like about that shit"

First, when I used the term, "fraudulent" I didn't mean it in a metaphorical sense. A few years later, emails came out which indicated the evaluation process was heavily political (the article quotes emails from the primary author, John Cook, outlining marketing strategies for a study which hadn't been done yet). For example, he wrote:

This thread is for general discussions of how to market TCP (began in t

You mean that website run by a Cartoonist ?

If you are going to throw stones, don't do it in a glass house. I'd say you should dispute the assertions or provide links, but since you are merely a Face Painting Homer rooting for your team, I expect you won't and/or can't.

Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.

This was not ignored, it was just not addressed in that post. Cook et al.'s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

I didn't just cite one source, half wit.

I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.

Choke on it.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

"To be honest, I

http://www.populartechnology.n...

You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.

Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.

The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.

Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classification of their papers. Seven authors, seven papers. Out of almost 12,000 papers and hundreds of authors in the scope of the study. "Andrew" claims to have "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." "Andrew" gives no indication of how many researchers he contacted, or of the nature of their responses. "Andrew" provides no methodology or supporting data of his supposed survey. "Andrew" simply lists SEVEN of the scientists, and surprise, ALL of them objected. Surprise 2 electric boogaloo: ALL of the scientists mentioned in "Andrew's" analysis are climate skeptics, one of whom is a crackpot who claims to have paranormal abilities and can find water by dowsing.

But, apparently, you see nothing problematic here either.

Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day.

LOL, did you just pull that out of thin air? Making things up and stating them as fact doesn't help your credibility.

So many of your "sources" are easily debunked when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Maybe you should challenge yourself and your sources just a tiny little bit harder before offer up these supposed "sources" in support of your claims.

And yet it happened:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.

The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:

As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.

Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.

As an aside, pointing to an opinion piece on Forbes written by James Taylor, a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, hardly lends weight to ANY argument. Mr. Taylor claims to be a "scientist by training" because "I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses". His employer, Heartland Institute, has likened climate scientists to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:

snip

NOBODY said the peer review process is perfect. But as GP correctly states, it's the best we've got. You seem to think that just because some academic fraud exists, that it's therefore having a substantial impact on climate science. That's a pretty extraordinary claim...got anything to back it up?

As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.

That's not what GP was saying. Jesus. Namarrgon is saying that before YOU or some other guy on the internet starts pontificating about this or that scientific research, YOU should at least read the abstract of said research. But since you're happy to rely on opinion pieces and pop science articles that are chock full of hyperbole and distortion, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Namarrgon's wise advice is falling on deaf ears. At least in your case.

And that is frequently what is going on.

According to who? You? On what credible data do you base that extraordinary claim? Another James Taylor opinion piece in Forbes?

http://www.populartechnology.n...

Wrong. The consensus myth is based on fallacious statistical studies of published papers.

Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.

The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.

Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day. Given that that is entirely impossible unless the kid is super human or he's just doing a word search... we can conclude that he was just doing a word search. And that being the case, they can't actually say the papers were in support of anything but rather that a given paper used some collection of words taken to be associated with climate change.

That cannot be used to determine support or opposition. Thus the statistical study is bogus on the count that the people cited as supporting it are often objecting and that the methodology itself is unsupportably sloppy.

Oh boy. Refering to a Cook paper is a shure fire way to show you only believe the faith and havent really looked too deeply in the reliability of that paper.

http://www.populartechnology.n...

Every single one of the papers that pretend to demonstrate a "concensus" on settled science of climate change has been shown to be fraudulent.

I'm sorry, you're full of shit and don't have a clue what you're talking about. When you disagree with NASA and CERN and the fossil record you better be able to also drop an SUV on mars from a rocket powered skycrane and hold all the worlds antimatter.

The IPCC has not been right about anything, ever, and if you don't think 75% error is meaningful then 2+2=7 is for you.

You wouldn't happen to be the recipient of a climate grant would you?

"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
"'I made a mistake'

As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

Oh fuck. The F word. F-f-f-f-f-uding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

"Warming" -> http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.nature.com/nclimate...
http://www.climate.gov/news-fe...
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...
http://opinion.financialpost.c...
http://www.populartechnology.n...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/...
http://www.climatechangedispat...
http://news.ku.dk/all_news/201...

If you have some other explanations of all these or proof of a warming world this might be a good time to drag it out.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/...

It seems they are peer-reviewed and properly published too

This is why we don't believe you.

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Get real.

The 97% meme is also a damned story. And having read the paper that story is based on, it's pretty easy to see how the number was cooked up.

Heh. I just noticed that. The paper's author is one, John Cook.

Anyway, take a look here for a compilation of over 1300 papers which are skeptical of the AGW premise:

http://www.populartechnology.n...

AGW is an emotionally manipulative lie designed to distract from the real causes of climate change, and of course, to levy new taxes and controls on the population.

I call bullshit on the 99.99% number.

Here's "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm"

http://www.populartechnology.n...

Can you show me 1,350,000 papers in support of agw?

By statistical modeling correlated to rising CO2 that shows trend lines antithetical to Global Warming modeling predictions. You'll need a large data sampling to reduce sensitivity to individual weather events. There's a reason such statistical modeling hasn't been done yet -- the data doesn't correlate antithetically to Global Warming models.

Oh, is that why the lead author of the IPCC report said explicitly that their models don't match reality over the last 20 years?

That infinitesimally small number of scientists that aren't part of the "consensus" by and large don't disagree with the data, just the cause.

Not only are you wrong about the number of scientists, but you take it upon yourself to speak for them, as well. Do you even know about the lies behind the "consensus"?

One of the most-cited "polls" is a paper by Cook, et al. But Cook simply lied. Here, I'll explain it simply, with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.

1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW.
646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis.
348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.

Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."

That's called lying.

And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.

And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.

Of course, this isn't even mentioning the flawed methodologies used in the data the IPCC reports are based on, nor the political manipulation used to rip out "inconvenient truths" from the IPCC drafts before publishing. Or how about this: the lead author of the IPCC reports said that the computer models used to make the IPCC projections are not tracking with reality over the last 20 years. The lead author said that. And these are the projections used to justify immediate, heavy-handed action.

What about the fact that as far back as the 1970s, "global warming" and "climate change" were being actively promoted as "vehicles" to effect unrelated political policies. The amount of money being spent on both sides of the issue by enormous corporations, organizations, and governments to manipulate the populations of the world into demanding action is obscene. That alone should give everyone serious pause.

But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.

Apparently you are forced to resort to ad hominems instead of logical argument. This is typical of alarmists.

Let's reason together with nice, round, hypothetical (yet representative) numbers to make it simple.

1,000 scientists write papers on the topic of AGW.
646 of the scientists neither endorse nor deny the AGW hypothesis.
348 of the scientists endorse the AGW hypothesis.

Then another "scientist" writes a paper about those papers. When he's writing his conclusions, he ignores the 646 neutral papers--he reduces his sample to the 348 papers which endorsed AGW. Then he says that 97% of those 348 papers claim to support "the consensus." Then--and this is the crucial part, so listen closely--then he says that 97% of all scientists claim to support "the AGW consensus."

That's called lying.

And that's only part of it. He also plotted to play word games, taking quotes out of context, to "convert" the neutral papers to pro-AGW viewpoints. That's called intellectual (even scientific) dishonesty--a politcally correct way of saying "lying." And he planned this before even doing the research--before he even knew what the numbers were. That is not science--that is politics and social engineering.

And on top of all that, he completely miscategorized at least 500 of the papers he used for his results--this is according to the authors of the papers themselves.

But go ahead and believe what you want. What's really sad is that people like you say that people like me are the ones in denial.

Anybody who looked seriously at content of the emails saw the conversations were taken out of context.

I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.

Basically, tree-ring data was removed because it showed a decline. [skepticalscience.com]

It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:

"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."

Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?

"Skeptical Science" is about legit as "Ministry of Truth", as the site is anything but skeptical and goes out of its way to put the most positive spin on AGW climate science. This makes for some interesting reading: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.

There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.

Freedom of information act does mean that anyone and everyone can harass you because you are a climate scientist.

I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.

You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?

If your colleague at work wants to see your work, you'd likely show it to him. If he is your enemy at work, would you let them?

Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).

Especially if they are asking for your incomplete work so that they can show your boss how incompetent you are.

I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?

the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to any

Some skeptics like Richard Muller didn't dispute the climate change's basic premise. He just didn't think there was enough evidence to draw a conclusion. With more evidence (including some he gathered himself), he has reversed his position.

Wrong, it was not a "reversal". His position never really changed.

Incorrect, this is in the article. His criticism of the Hockey Stick did not change his position on climate change,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming".

He was never universally regarded as a skeptic despite the cartoonist's website desperate attempts to make him out to be one. You cannot find a single comment or article from him on any skeptic site and you will not find any statement that he signed being skeptical of anything.

The real story was that we had a big non-believer on AGW had a change of heart when he did the research himself and came to the same conclusion as IPCC.

That part has me confused. He's never been a non-believer in AGW.

(and I'm not sure there is a conclusion to talk about yet since the paper isn't peer reviewed. It also seems his former paper was rejected in peer review which doesn't bode well)

Well, those own words are a lie.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism...

OK, here are your peer-reviewed science papers.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

What is wrong with teachers using that science for their classrooms?

Because actual scientists in a field are doing actual research on the topic, and they have been through all the debates and reviews and all that.

Of course, that still doesn't mean that some scientists in a field can't be dishonest scumbags who consciously spread falsehoods about their field because of their political or religious beliefs.

Case in point. Notice how you are referring to things like speeches and blog posts rather than actual scientific papers?

And as I pointed out above, there are always some scientists within a field who sadly let their ideology cloud their minds.

Your statements here belie an arrogance that is inappropriate. You over simply a complex issue by essentially stating that all skeptics do not have any peer reviewed work, or are intentionally misleading people. Here is a website full of scientists with the correct qualifications that disagree with the AGW establishment with peer reviewed papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Your post has the mark of an Ad hominem argument. Both sides have peer reviewed research. Check out http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html/

and the sun is a motherfucka charriot of fire.

This is, in fact, a real argument used by denialists:

Earth's Heat Source - The Sun (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 131-144, January 2009)
- Oliver K. Manuel

Taken from the 500 peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming"

The "paper" argues that the sun is made of iron, which explains why global warming is not caused by man.

ABSTRACT
The Sun encompasses planet Earth, supplies the heat that warms it, and even
shakes it. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) assumed that solar influence on Earth's climate is limited to changes in
solar irradiance and adopted the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun--the
Standard Solar Model (SSM). They did not consider the alternative solar model
and instead adopted another consensus opinion: Anthropogenic greenhouse gases
play a dominant role in climate change. The SSM fails to explain the solar wind,
solar cycles, and the empirical link of solar surface activity with Earth's changing
climate. The alternative solar model--molded from an embarrassingly large
number of unexpected observations that space-age measurements revealed since
1959--explains not only these puzzles but also how closely linked interactions
between the Sun and its planets and other celestial bodies induce turbulent cycles
of secondary solar characteristics that significantly affect Earth's climate.

The short version of everything that's come out so far is: the leading climate scientists pushing AGW were lying left, right, and center, and there is absolutely no evidence, not even a little, to support global warming, let alone AGW. If you haven't done so already,

I've seen it, it shows nothing of the sort. It shows people having considerable difficulty in combining data sets in a consistent and reliable way. This is always a tricky problem. Your "data manipulation" could easily be correction factors for systematic errors or problems with particular data sets. But of course a private note that was never meant to be read is hardly going to be a complete, detailed and fully explained document, is it?

I can only assume that people are reading into it what they want to see.

So have I, and so can anyone that wants to. Here.

I invite you to peruse the last Slashdot entry about this.
OVERWHELMINGLY we determined there was definitely more going on than "considerable difficulty".
Hiding from FOIA requests, conspiring to lock out a publication that wasn't swallowing their bate (how dare a peer review journal ask difficult questions of AGW!).
Then we have Phil working to keep these two papers from being seen at the next IPCC meeting--

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil

If those 2 articles don't present valid arguments questioning AGW (and they do, I've read them and invite you to as well) then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them. Instead they're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.

Yessir, "considerable difficulty" indeed. Sure looks like science to me.
What a joke.
In my parents time it was global cooling, when I was younger it was a giant hole in the ozone above Australia caused by big evil America, a year ago it was Global Warming, and now it's become "Climate Change".
All a farce and an sleight of hand scheme to misuse taxpayer money. Notice CNN didn't once run a story on this. BBC did, credible enough for me.
"Considerable difficulty" indeed.

Ah, I see...this must be why they're trying to keep these two papers from being included in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included.
If those two papers present valid arguments (which it sounds like they do) and the IPCC is unbiased in its review, then I can see why they would be afraid of the IPCC reading them.
This must be why Manning wrote

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers, Phil

If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them.
So basically they're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence/raw data and avoid FOIA requests.

OK then there's no reason these two papers--
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

shouldn't be in the IPCC report; two papers Mann said he was willing to "redefine" the meaning of peer-review so they wouldn't have to be included.

If they don't present valid arguments questioning AGW then they shouldn't be afraid of people getting their hands on them.
Quit pussyfooting around. They're receiving tax dollars and they're trying to hide the evidence and avoid FOIA requests.
If AGW is real the Truth with Out. They're afraid of dissenting opinions because they don't want to lose their money. Duh.

Now can we please move on and cancel that climate change committee meeting? Obama has better things to be doing.

Well, on the right-hand side of the "firefox cult" link is what appears to be an ad for Windows XP... I clicked that sucker for five minutes trying to get something to come up. SOMEBODY knows how to incentivate!