Let me try this again - forgot to log in for the above post:
(Disclosure: yeah, I worked for SJG back then - guess what product I worked on. No, I don't make any money from it nowadays. I never had any problems with Steve at all - most of the people who have issues with him are, well, idiots.)
So, when someone was talking about taking his games (which are what he makes his living on) and handing them out for free, he reacted in a rational manner, and those people who were wanting something for nothing got their feelings hurt?
Gee what a shame.
It reminds me of the time right after Car Wars came out, and a guy I knew showed up to a gaming session with a photocopy of the game. Now, you have to remember that this was the early 1980s, and the copies cost him about 25 cents a page - he paid more for the crappy black and white copy than he would have for the nice, full-color, well-made game. The idiot couldn't understand why that was wrong.
Of course, about the same time, there were at least three different automotive combat games hitting the market, and all three were directly because of Car Wars. I talked to the maker of one of them, and he happily told me that it was a poor quality copy designed purely to rip off the Car Wars brand.
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
Pretty weak stuff, overall.
On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Large areas where there's no advanced communications networks.
Of course, nobody really LIVES in most of those huge data voids, which is why nobody puts billions of dollars into building cell towers in those areas, but...
The thing people keep ignoring in this ongoing story is how most of the "hacking" happened with the assistance of one or more people working for the government: police officers (some of them have already been nabbed for this) and political appointees, along with the standard-issue public employee bureaucrats.
The official who had his computer "hacked?" BS. He sold the information to someone, and when he got caught, he lied.
That's what happens when you give bureaucrats the power to tap phones and other private communications: they sell it to people who would get arrested for doing it, or who are too dumb to do it themselves.
It's not just NewsCorp, too - half of the tabloids in the UK have been caught in this affair.
Pretty much every major technical advance you can think of in internal combustion cars that made them faster and cheaper came from people racing them.
Of course, they've been getting more expensive over the last couple of decades - but a huge chunk of that cost has been the addition of things that cars don't really need to run - safety, electronic gadgets, emissions controls. And even with that, most modern "sporty" family cars will leave all but the hottest 1970s era sports or muscle cars in the dust, especially when handling is considered.
If we made new cars to 1970s safety standards, without mileage and pollution controls, they'd be insanely fast, much lighter, and about 1/2 the price.
The side effects of that can be left as an exercise for the reader.
Then you're also demanding that James Hansen, NASA administrator and major AGW scientist, should also go to prison?
You see, while he's been touting AGW, he also took in well over a million dollars from organizations with large financial and political stakes in the "science" showing AGW - and he actually committed a crime, since he didn't get prior permission from NASA to do so.
This is on top of his political activism, where he's done and said many stupid things (which would get him fired in almost any other field).
Hansen is a very politically motivated guy - to the point where his scientific opinions and statements just can't be trusted. And he's directly in charge of a very large amount of the temperature and climate data that supposedly supports the whole AGW theory. Data which, for some odd reason, they can't find the original records - only the "corrected" record, which shows warming that others can't account for.
Wait what? Suing the people polluting and causing the problem is the wrong target and they should be suing the government agency that has not had the power to do anything yet?
Except that they have, since the 2007 case.
The EPA issued a ruling in 2009 which says so explicitly, listing CO2 with several other gases which could be considered pollutants because of potential greenhouse effects.
The bad part of that is the same people who claim otherwise did it for the same reason - to try and consciously tie people who disagree with them to Nazis.
Now that you know how "global warming denier" and "AGW denier" really came to be, you can stop using the term. Unless, of course, you're still trying to do what those people did. And the people who disagree with you will know from the first moment you use the phrase that you're not going to argue honestly or fairly.
"Denialist" is a really interesting turn of phrase. People started intentionally using it against global warming skeptics to directly call to mind Holocaust deniers. Yeah - by calling people "denialists," you're really calling them "Nazis."
So yeah - keep using that word. It's a great cue to everyone who's not a True believer in AGW that you were never interested in the science part of the debate anyway. Everything in your post after your first word is, of course, wrong. Try reading some of the global warming skeptic sites instead of just Realclimate and the other AGW fansites.
Just as a hint: most of the AGW skeptic articles I read (as opposed to the imagined ones that exist only in your mind) just point out how BAD the science is on the pro-AGW theory side - and usually have better science to back them up.
They also treat people from the AGW side much, MUCH better than any of the people on your side usually manage in the comments sections. Here's a test for you: create a new account on Realclimate. Make a comment in favor of the skeptics - and not a dumb one, either, you can ask some very reasonable questions that they should be able to knock out of the park. Notice how fast your comment disappears from the discussion...
One small problem, though - the NOAA numbers for that time period came from a truncated data set.
For some unstated reason, NOAA decided that the previous number of stations was too large, and decided to stop using the full set. So they dropped a lot of stations. Not the ones in cities, or that had problems with siting (like next to air conditioning units), but a whole bunch of rural ones. Which had the effect of making the overall temperature seem to increase. For exactly the time period when other measurements showed a flat to decreasing graph.
People who looked at individual rural stations can't seem to find the "hotter" trend - and those are exactly the places you'd expect to find it.
The NOAA record seems to be more of a study of "how much has the Urban Heat Index measurement changed over the last couple of decades" than any serious accurate global heat measurement. Look at the http://www.surfacestations.org/ website for examples of just how bad current ground instrument siting is. When you see an "official" thermometer station sitting in the middle of a recently-installed asphalt parking lot, you know it's going to be a bit warm when compared to the same one that's been in a grass field for 100 years...
This is because people are bad at quantitative analysis. Look, solar irradiance averages about 1366 W/m^2 and a has a variation of about 1 W/m^2 (using a one-year moving average). That's 0.073%.
...except for the parts you left out.
For example, while total irradiance is fairly flat, the makeup of that radiation varies greatly, and different frequencies have different effects on heating. Ultraviolet radiation can vary by up to 1.5%, for example, which is a problem, since a lot of absorbed stratospheric heat comes from that frequency band (centered at about 250 nm). Ultraviolet seems to be about 4% higher now than during the Maunder Minimum - which means that a similar drop would have a MUCH larger effect than you suggest.
You also missed one other thing - you confused the in-cycle peak to trough measurement with the cycle-to-cycle measurement, which is noticeably larger. Longer time spans (while averaging smaller variations) also show some much larger total solar radiation changes.
Another problem is that the Earth isn't the only thing directly affected by the Sun. When the Sun gets quiet, the solar wind does too. Which allows a LOT more cosmic rays to hit the Earth (15% or so). Which creates more high-altitude clouds. Which increases the albedo of the planet, which makes things even cooler.
By finally admitting that the Sun has obvious cycles, the people saying "it's not going to do much" are also ignoring the reciprocal problem... which is that we've been on the UPSWING of that same solar cycle for the same time period that global warming has occurred. That also means that the 0.3 C of warming over the last three decades that they claim is really less than 0.1 C - and the predictions of dangerous global warming go from 5 degrees C to... less than 0.4 C over the next century or so, and that's ignoring cloud effects.
Something you should look up: there isn't one "solar cycle." There are several. There's the obvious 11-year (more or less) Schwabe cycle, but there is also the 22 year Hale Cycle (when the Sun's magnetic field reverses polarity), the 72-83 year Gleissberg cycle, the 205 year Suess cycle, and at least four others, ranging up to 6,000 years.
Some people suggest as many as a dozen different cycles that directly affect solar output. All of these interact, which causes all sorts of irregular reinforcements and suppressions in the Sun's output - we've been hitting the top of a couple of cycles lately, but we're starting to see what happens when the Wolf-Gleissberg combination turns around. The last peak in that cycle topped out in 2009... and the predicted downslope looks like a really mean drop. The Hallstadt Cycle has peaked, too, apparently, and is starting a downward trend, too, but it's going to take a long time for that one to seriously kick in.
The Dead Hand system is not a Dr. Strangelove-type doomsday machine.
Actually, it is just that sort of thing. The Dead Hand system is what's called a "fail deadly" system - one that's designed to activate on the loss of signal, along with certain positive things (radiation detection). It nearly went off a couple of times that we know of, and was only stopped in at least one case by someone disregarding the rules(!).
It doesn't have the huge cobalt bombs that were part of the Strangelove plot, but the rest of the system is more than dangerous enough to make up for it.
...which is measured differently than pretty much every other First World nation on the planet.
We count babies as "born" which most countries end up counting as "stillborn," which hits a different category in the stats. For that matter, we have premature births which end up with nice, healthy babies - that most countries can't even keep alive - or won't even try...
Some European countries don't count a baby death as "infant mortality" until the baby reaches three days (they don't issue birth certificates until then, and the infant mortality stats use birth certificates for generating that statistic).
When it comes to this sort of polling, there's a little thing that slips by the people who comment on them.
When people from other countries take this sort of test, we get a solid mix of answers, taken seriously.
When people from the United States take them, a regular sample of about 33% hit the "funny answer button."
You get high school students who will, given the chance, answer "Who was Martin Luther King?" with "D. A famous dentist."
You get people on the Internet who answer "what is evolution?" with "D. A clever fiction thought up by some guy."
Yeah, we have more people who really do believe in some things, but we also have a massively higher number of folks who get handed a "no points toward your final grade" test, fill in "D" for all of the answers, and spend the next 45 minutes staring off into space, because the results DO NOT AFFECT THEIR LIVES IN ANY RATIONAL FASHION...
However, 99.9% or more of the people in the world wouldn't be able to do a damn thing with it.
...which mean six million or so COULD do something with it.
"One in a thousand" doesn't mean very much when you have six billion for your sample size.
Considering how many damaging flaws have turned up in the core research of Global Warming Science (and how much damning fakery has turned up in the leaked letters from CRU), it's safe to say that many of those "ignorant whack-jobs" are, to say the least, smarter and more perceptive than most of the folks who rabidly defend AGW...
If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations' lands...which has been either minimal or non-detectable, as opposed to what the AGW fans have been telling us. Not exactly a good point.
to the melting of the arctic tundra...which can only melt when it's man-caused global warming, instead of the sun-caused version which is probably what's been observed for the last half century?
to the loss of glaciation document global warming independently of these scientists' data.
Except that much of the "glaciation loss" is probably due to lowered precipitation instead of increased temperatures.
Correlation is not causation. Just because the globe got slightly warmer doesn't mean it was CO2-based AGW that did it.
You should also note that if you go back to the beginning of serious AGW science (during the late 1980s), most of their predictions have already been falsified. The globe should be at least a half-degree warmer than observed (check the "Hockey Stick" graph in its earlier incarnations), the oceans should be at least a foot deeper (up to five feet higher today, according to some predictions), and storms should be much, much more severe (they're not). None of these things have happened over the last twenty years, therefore THEY WERE WRONG.
On the other hand, many of the skeptics have been supporting the solar variation side of the theory of global climate change, and (surprise!) it matches up quite nicely to observed temperature changes, including the prediction of the stable/cooling trend in the last ten years.
"My experience is that a good number of 'those questions' -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change."
The first and largest was "what did your simulations actually DO when calculating this predicted climate change?"
And yes, the answer was, basically, "shut up - we know what we're doing, you don't need to see the computer code."
Whereas the truth was "the computer code sucks, it doesn't give the 'correct' answers, so we filled it full of hard-coded routines that gave us the answer we wanted."
Another question was "have you adjusted the raw data?" They said "no," the truth was "oh, hell yeah, and we're going to delete it before you can get an honest look at it."
The straw man questions you post were, oddly enough, not that straw-mannish, especially since the guy who is the godfather of the global warming computer models apparently did the computer model that predicted global cooling back in the day. I guess you didn't know that, though. It's another of those "dumb" questions you didn't even know was asked, much less the answer to...
Slashdot Mirror
Let me try this again - forgot to log in for the above post:
(Disclosure: yeah, I worked for SJG back then - guess what product I worked on. No, I don't make any money from it nowadays. I never had any problems with Steve at all - most of the people who have issues with him are, well, idiots.)
So, when someone was talking about taking his games (which are what he makes his living on) and handing them out for free, he reacted in a rational manner, and those people who were wanting something for nothing got their feelings hurt?
Gee what a shame.
It reminds me of the time right after Car Wars came out, and a guy I knew showed up to a gaming session with a photocopy of the game. Now, you have to remember that this was the early 1980s, and the copies cost him about 25 cents a page - he paid more for the crappy black and white copy than he would have for the nice, full-color, well-made game. The idiot couldn't understand why that was wrong.
Of course, about the same time, there were at least three different automotive combat games hitting the market, and all three were directly because of Car Wars. I talked to the maker of one of them, and he happily told me that it was a poor quality copy designed purely to rip off the Car Wars brand.
200 ms from Florida to Tokyo, just now.
235 ms from Florida to Sydney, Australia.
If you're getting over 200 ms for connections across the US, something is horribly wrong.
Normal speedtest results from Florida to Washington DC are in the 25 ms range...
Oh, look - another idiot who bought into Gleick's fraudulent "memo."
The "anti-science" part gave it away.
Actually, it's "a court order following a strong possibility raised in court that the study isn't reflecting reality."
So it's the other way around.
Here's a tip, folks: just because it's a "scientific study," it's not always correct or honest.
The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"
Pretty weak stuff, overall.
On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Large areas where there's no advanced communications networks.
Of course, nobody really LIVES in most of those huge data voids, which is why nobody puts billions of dollars into building cell towers in those areas, but...
How in the heck to you expect me to celebrate an apocalypse while I'm working so hard to arrange it?
Working holidays can suck, but this one will be well worth it.
There's a lot of interesting things in PowerPoint that most people never see - like buttons, which work very much like the buttons in HyperCard.
Most people never use more than 5% of PowerPoint's features - and even the "power users" seldom use more than 25%.
The thing people keep ignoring in this ongoing story is how most of the "hacking" happened with the assistance of one or more people working for the government: police officers (some of them have already been nabbed for this) and political appointees, along with the standard-issue public employee bureaucrats.
The official who had his computer "hacked?" BS. He sold the information to someone, and when he got caught, he lied.
That's what happens when you give bureaucrats the power to tap phones and other private communications: they sell it to people who would get arrested for doing it, or who are too dumb to do it themselves.
It's not just NewsCorp, too - half of the tabloids in the UK have been caught in this affair.
Pretty much every major technical advance you can think of in internal combustion cars that made them faster and cheaper came from people racing them.
Of course, they've been getting more expensive over the last couple of decades - but a huge chunk of that cost has been the addition of things that cars don't really need to run - safety, electronic gadgets, emissions controls. And even with that, most modern "sporty" family cars will leave all but the hottest 1970s era sports or muscle cars in the dust, especially when handling is considered.
If we made new cars to 1970s safety standards, without mileage and pollution controls, they'd be insanely fast, much lighter, and about 1/2 the price.
The side effects of that can be left as an exercise for the reader.
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.
That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...
Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?
Then you're also demanding that James Hansen, NASA administrator and major AGW scientist, should also go to prison?
You see, while he's been touting AGW, he also took in well over a million dollars from organizations with large financial and political stakes in the "science" showing AGW - and he actually committed a crime, since he didn't get prior permission from NASA to do so.
This is on top of his political activism, where he's done and said many stupid things (which would get him fired in almost any other field).
Hansen is a very politically motivated guy - to the point where his scientific opinions and statements just can't be trusted. And he's directly in charge of a very large amount of the temperature and climate data that supposedly supports the whole AGW theory. Data which, for some odd reason, they can't find the original records - only the "corrected" record, which shows warming that others can't account for.
Except that they have, since the 2007 case.
The EPA issued a ruling in 2009 which says so explicitly, listing CO2 with several other gases which could be considered pollutants because of potential greenhouse effects.
The bad part of that is the same people who claim otherwise did it for the same reason - to try and consciously tie people who disagree with them to Nazis.
Now that you know how "global warming denier" and "AGW denier" really came to be, you can stop using the term. Unless, of course, you're still trying to do what those people did. And the people who disagree with you will know from the first moment you use the phrase that you're not going to argue honestly or fairly.
"Denialist" is a really interesting turn of phrase. People started intentionally using it against global warming skeptics to directly call to mind Holocaust deniers. Yeah - by calling people "denialists," you're really calling them "Nazis."
So yeah - keep using that word. It's a great cue to everyone who's not a True believer in AGW that you were never interested in the science part of the debate anyway. Everything in your post after your first word is, of course, wrong. Try reading some of the global warming skeptic sites instead of just Realclimate and the other AGW fansites.
Just as a hint: most of the AGW skeptic articles I read (as opposed to the imagined ones that exist only in your mind) just point out how BAD the science is on the pro-AGW theory side - and usually have better science to back them up.
They also treat people from the AGW side much, MUCH better than any of the people on your side usually manage in the comments sections. Here's a test for you: create a new account on Realclimate. Make a comment in favor of the skeptics - and not a dumb one, either, you can ask some very reasonable questions that they should be able to knock out of the park. Notice how fast your comment disappears from the discussion...
One small problem, though - the NOAA numbers for that time period came from a truncated data set.
For some unstated reason, NOAA decided that the previous number of stations was too large, and decided to stop using the full set. So they dropped a lot of stations. Not the ones in cities, or that had problems with siting (like next to air conditioning units), but a whole bunch of rural ones. Which had the effect of making the overall temperature seem to increase. For exactly the time period when other measurements showed a flat to decreasing graph.
People who looked at individual rural stations can't seem to find the "hotter" trend - and those are exactly the places you'd expect to find it.
The NOAA record seems to be more of a study of "how much has the Urban Heat Index measurement changed over the last couple of decades" than any serious accurate global heat measurement. Look at the http://www.surfacestations.org/ website for examples of just how bad current ground instrument siting is. When you see an "official" thermometer station sitting in the middle of a recently-installed asphalt parking lot, you know it's going to be a bit warm when compared to the same one that's been in a grass field for 100 years...
This is because people are bad at quantitative analysis. Look, solar irradiance averages about 1366 W/m^2 and a has a variation of about 1 W/m^2 (using a one-year moving average). That's 0.073%.
For example, while total irradiance is fairly flat, the makeup of that radiation varies greatly, and different frequencies have different effects on heating. Ultraviolet radiation can vary by up to 1.5%, for example, which is a problem, since a lot of absorbed stratospheric heat comes from that frequency band (centered at about 250 nm). Ultraviolet seems to be about 4% higher now than during the Maunder Minimum - which means that a similar drop would have a MUCH larger effect than you suggest.
You also missed one other thing - you confused the in-cycle peak to trough measurement with the cycle-to-cycle measurement, which is noticeably larger. Longer time spans (while averaging smaller variations) also show some much larger total solar radiation changes.
Another problem is that the Earth isn't the only thing directly affected by the Sun. When the Sun gets quiet, the solar wind does too. Which allows a LOT more cosmic rays to hit the Earth (15% or so). Which creates more high-altitude clouds. Which increases the albedo of the planet, which makes things even cooler.
By finally admitting that the Sun has obvious cycles, the people saying "it's not going to do much" are also ignoring the reciprocal problem... which is that we've been on the UPSWING of that same solar cycle for the same time period that global warming has occurred. That also means that the 0.3 C of warming over the last three decades that they claim is really less than 0.1 C - and the predictions of dangerous global warming go from 5 degrees C to... less than 0.4 C over the next century or so, and that's ignoring cloud effects.
Something you should look up: there isn't one "solar cycle." There are several. There's the obvious 11-year (more or less) Schwabe cycle, but there is also the 22 year Hale Cycle (when the Sun's magnetic field reverses polarity), the 72-83 year Gleissberg cycle, the 205 year Suess cycle, and at least four others, ranging up to 6,000 years.
Some people suggest as many as a dozen different cycles that directly affect solar output. All of these interact, which causes all sorts of irregular reinforcements and suppressions in the Sun's output - we've been hitting the top of a couple of cycles lately, but we're starting to see what happens when the Wolf-Gleissberg combination turns around. The last peak in that cycle topped out in 2009... and the predicted downslope looks like a really mean drop. The Hallstadt Cycle has peaked, too, apparently, and is starting a downward trend, too, but it's going to take a long time for that one to seriously kick in.
Handing over a huge pile of classified information counts as "Aid and Comfort." Oops.
The Dead Hand system is not a Dr. Strangelove-type doomsday machine.
Actually, it is just that sort of thing. The Dead Hand system is what's called a "fail deadly" system - one that's designed to activate on the loss of signal, along with certain positive things (radiation detection). It nearly went off a couple of times that we know of, and was only stopped in at least one case by someone disregarding the rules(!).
It doesn't have the huge cobalt bombs that were part of the Strangelove plot, but the rest of the system is more than dangerous enough to make up for it.
Like our child mortality rate
We count babies as "born" which most countries end up counting as "stillborn," which hits a different category in the stats. For that matter, we have premature births which end up with nice, healthy babies - that most countries can't even keep alive - or won't even try...
Some European countries don't count a baby death as "infant mortality" until the baby reaches three days (they don't issue birth certificates until then, and the infant mortality stats use birth certificates for generating that statistic).
When it comes to this sort of polling, there's a little thing that slips by the people who comment on them.
When people from other countries take this sort of test, we get a solid mix of answers, taken seriously.
When people from the United States take them, a regular sample of about 33% hit the "funny answer button."
You get high school students who will, given the chance, answer "Who was Martin Luther King?" with "D. A famous dentist."
You get people on the Internet who answer "what is evolution?" with "D. A clever fiction thought up by some guy."
Yeah, we have more people who really do believe in some things, but we also have a massively higher number of folks who get handed a "no points toward your final grade" test, fill in "D" for all of the answers, and spend the next 45 minutes staring off into space, because the results DO NOT AFFECT THEIR LIVES IN ANY RATIONAL FASHION...
However, 99.9% or more of the people in the world wouldn't be able to do a damn thing with it.
"One in a thousand" doesn't mean very much when you have six billion for your sample size.
Considering how many damaging flaws have turned up in the core research of Global Warming Science (and how much damning fakery has turned up in the leaked letters from CRU), it's safe to say that many of those "ignorant whack-jobs" are, to say the least, smarter and more perceptive than most of the folks who rabidly defend AGW...
If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations' lands ...which has been either minimal or non-detectable, as opposed to what the AGW fans have been telling us. Not exactly a good point.
to the melting of the arctic tundra ...which can only melt when it's man-caused global warming, instead of the sun-caused version which is probably what's been observed for the last half century?
to the loss of glaciation document global warming independently of these scientists' data.
Except that much of the "glaciation loss" is probably due to lowered precipitation instead of increased temperatures.
Correlation is not causation. Just because the globe got slightly warmer doesn't mean it was CO2-based AGW that did it.
You should also note that if you go back to the beginning of serious AGW science (during the late 1980s), most of their predictions have already been falsified. The globe should be at least a half-degree warmer than observed (check the "Hockey Stick" graph in its earlier incarnations), the oceans should be at least a foot deeper (up to five feet higher today, according to some predictions), and storms should be much, much more severe (they're not). None of these things have happened over the last twenty years, therefore THEY WERE WRONG.
On the other hand, many of the skeptics have been supporting the solar variation side of the theory of global climate change, and (surprise!) it matches up quite nicely to observed temperature changes, including the prediction of the stable/cooling trend in the last ten years.
"My experience is that a good number of 'those questions' -- at least as they filter out into popular discussion -- are either ridiculous or end up having credible responses in support of anthropocentric climate change."
The first and largest was "what did your simulations actually DO when calculating this predicted climate change?"
And yes, the answer was, basically, "shut up - we know what we're doing, you don't need to see the computer code."
Whereas the truth was "the computer code sucks, it doesn't give the 'correct' answers, so we filled it full of hard-coded routines that gave us the answer we wanted."
Another question was "have you adjusted the raw data?" They said "no," the truth was "oh, hell yeah, and we're going to delete it before you can get an honest look at it."
The straw man questions you post were, oddly enough, not that straw-mannish, especially since the guy who is the godfather of the global warming computer models apparently did the computer model that predicted global cooling back in the day. I guess you didn't know that, though. It's another of those "dumb" questions you didn't even know was asked, much less the answer to...