rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:24 pm**

The Heartland Institute is a lobbying group which has received $676,000 from ExxonMobil[1]. In 2007 it published a list of “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares”[2]. These people, it maintained, supported “the very important view that the
Modern Warming is natural and no more dangerous than were the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming and the Holocene Warming before it.”

But they didn’t. Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.com started contacting the people the Heartland Institute had listed. He asked them whether they endorsed the views the Heartland Institute said they held. Within 48 hours, 45 people responded, all outraged that they had been traduced. Here are some samples of their replies to Kevin and their messages to the author of the list, Dennis Avery:

“I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. David Sugden, Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh.

“I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!”
Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

“Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist.”
Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University.

“They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science.”
Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

“Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research.”
Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

None of these names have yet been removed from the institute’s list.

References:

1. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

2. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_p ... /21977.pdf

3. http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:24 pm**

In 2004, Harper’s magazine published a leaked memo from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to Phil Cooney, the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been given over $2m by Exxon[1]. Ebell’s memo showed that the White House and the Institute had been working together to discredit a report on climate change produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, whose head at the time was Christine Todd Whitman.

“Dear Phil,
Thanks for calling and asking for our help. … As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the President needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired[2].”

The New York Times later discovered that Phil Cooney, who is a lawyer with no scientific training, had been imported into the White House from the American Petroleum Institute, to control the presentation of climate science[3]. He edited scientific reports, striking out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserting phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming[4]. When the revelations were published he resigned and took up a post at Exxon[5].

The oil company also had direct access to the White House. On 6th February 2001, 17 days after George W. Bush was sworn in, A.G. (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil’s senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House[6]. It began by discussing the role of Bob Watson, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It suggested he had a “personal agenda” and asked

“Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?”[7]

It went on to ask that the United States be represented at the panel’s discussions by a Dr Harlan Watson[8]. Both requests were met. One Watson was sacked, the other was appointed, and went on to wreak havoc at international climate meetings.

References:

1. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2

2. Letter from Myron Ebell to Phil Cooney. Published in the May 2004 edition of Harper’s magazine: White House Effect.

3. Andrew C. Revkin, 8th June 2005. Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming. New York Times.

4. ibid.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:25 pm**

In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (ICE). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes[1]. The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact)”[2].

ICE was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means Committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to “Demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming.” If it worked, ICE would “implement program nationwide.”

It identified “two possible target audiences”:

“Target 1: Older, less educated males”.
These people, ICE said, would be receptive to “messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming - for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence….”

“Target 2: younger, lower-income women”
“… These women are more receptive … to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be “green” consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information…”

ICE discovered that “members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.” Here are some of the messages it tested:

- “Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat.”
- “Who told you the Earth was warming … Chicken Little?”
- “How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?”[3]

These messages must have worked, because they were later used by ICE in a wider media campaign.

References:

1. www.aip.org/history/powerpoints/GlobalW ... reskes.ppt

2. ibid.

3. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, 2009. Climate Cover-Up. Greystone Books, Vancouver.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:29 pm**

Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.

The University of Adelaide's code of practice on research misconduct states:

Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless disregard for the truth:

(a) state or present a material or significant falsehood; (b) omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

Elsewhere, James Randerson interviewed Plimer and

found him to be one of the most difficult and evasive interviewees I have spoken to in my career, frequently veering off on tangents rather than answering the question I had put.

Randerson has an another example of Plimer refusing to admit to even the most blatant error:

Elsewhere in the book, Plimer appears to have conflated a US temperature record and the global average temperature. On page 99 he writes "Nasa now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934." The Nasa dataset he is referring to covers the US only but he seems to be referring to the world average.

Again, Plimer does not appear to accept that the world is warming. But in fact, the hottest year on record is 1998 and eight of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century.

When I put the mistake to him he responded: "The 1930s in North America and probably the rest of the world were a hot period of time." But what about increased global average temperature since then? "That has been disputed by many of my colleagues who I have a great regard for because they've been the people involved in putting measurements together ... I do dispute that as do many other people who are far more qualified in atmospheric sciences than I."

Bob Burton tracks down the story of how the AAP reported Plimer's speech before it happened. As you might have guessed, the journalist did a cut and paste from a press release put out by a PR firm.

On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald printed a report from Copenhagen by Ian Plimer on a news page. My letter to them:

Please cancel my subscription to the SMH.

The SMH simply does not care about the accuracy of what it publishes. You obviously did not bother to check whether there was any basis to Ian Plimer's dishonest smears of climate scientist, allowing him to falsely accuse them of fraud and "mafia-type thuggery".

I don't know why you think your business model should involve deceiving your readers, but I'm not buying it or your paper any more.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12 ... _fraud.php

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:31 pm**

The phrase "hide the decline" from the stolen CRU emails has been taken out of context and construed to refer to a decline in temperatures this century when in fact it was a reference to a decline in tree-ring density since 1961. Steve McIntyre knows this, but instead of a correction, he offers another misrepesentation of its meaning, quote mining the stolen emails to argue that the IPCC was hiding stuff:

IPCC Lead Authors met in Arusha, Tanzania from September 1 to 3, 1999 ... at which the final version of the "zero-order" draft of the Third Assessment Report was presented and discussed ...

No minutes of this meeting are available, but Climategate correspondence on Sep 22-23, 1999 provides some contemporary information about the meeting.Mann noted that "everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that the [decline in the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem"

But Mcintyre has mislead his readers by leaving out the parts of the emails that show that his intrepretration of them is false. Deep Climate has the bits that McIntyre deliberately left out:

But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa's reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction's length. Thus, once again, McIntyre's speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. ...

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Seriously, any time one sees McIntyre using elipsis it's a good idea to check it out.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12 ... he_quo.php

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:33 pm**

honestly, the theory of man made global warming is supported by science

the theory against this hypothesis is supported by loons, lies and oil money,
and the post modern idea that any idea as valid as the next

believe what you like, but you will find yourself on the wrong side of this one

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:08 am**

smiths, thanks for turning down the tone knob a bit.

believe what you like, but you will find yourself on the wrong side of this one

As it happens I do not ‘believe’ either way, and the only advantage to believing that I see is to score brownie points with the believers. Well maybe that is a large advantage to miss out on, but in the name of objectivity, I’m happy to pay the price.

I can see that there is bad science on both sides with the major interest being the preservation or projection of one style of personal identity as being more valid than the other. Both sides see the bad science on the other side yet seldom confront the bad science produced by their side. I think its called confirmation bias. All this is not surprising given that our psychical conditioning system is built around the either/or dichotomy.

So I am not impressed with the current state of science as it seems more like scientism to me. This impression results from the modern embrace of things like fluoride, GM foods, ethanol, vaccines, aspartame, pharmaceuticals, soil killing chemical fertilizers, DU, etc. It seems like the only place for ‘objectivity’ in science is where it supports moneymaking enterprise, leaving the search for truth to discerning the shape of shadows on a cave wall. I am also pretty sure that there is new tech that is suppressed because it tends to undermine current moneymaking enterprise.

Piecemeal fixes, produced by the same mentality that got us into this situation are not going to get us out of it. At this point, the human mind seems better able to shield us from reality, rather than it being used to reveal greater depth to reality. To me, this is the result of an overbearing intellect so dependent on fixed forms that it leaves little room for signals from the heart and creative reinterpretation of our basic situation.

There was a thread that Zap started awhile ago that illustrates the good and bad of science pretty well. The Doctor is clearly doing good work yet institutional representatives of the MS community recommended that patients not even check to see whether there is obstruction in their neck veins. Unflipping believable? Not at all, as this is seen in all cases where institutions administer to the pretences and beliefs of individuals. Institutions can only care about propagating their influence and that is found by enforcing existing forms of understanding, so that any relationship to truth seems to recede rather quickly.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25965&p=300338&hilit=Zamboni&sid=340655108d095e047cf7a128befad90c#p300338

taking Multiple Sclerosis out of Big Pharma's budget flow
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... ?s_name=W5

vs

http://www.pr-inside.com/examine-the-gl ... 213395.htm

The contrast between the two articles is quite illustrative, but even within the first Zamboni segment, both the good and bad of science are in evidence. The neurologists think they already know that MS is an auto-immune disease so they resist associating with Zamboni. I imagine that they are afraid to take a hit to their apparent credibility, and at the least they are not being objective. The ‘societies’ are no doubt afraid of losses on their existing investments, hence their anti-rational stance.

The MS Societies of Canada and the U.S. are reticent to support Zamboni's theories. They maintain that: "Based on results published about these findings to date, there is not enough evidence to say that obstruction of veins causes MS... It is still not clear whether relieving venous obstructions would be beneficial."

Bottom line; we will put things right when we get over our emotional attachment to personal identity supporting beliefs.

Beliefs within a framework that reflects a dynamic relationship (of consciousness) to reality will have less tendency to become 'fixed'. Then 'personal identity' may be replaced by an 'assemblage point' (Aeolus Kephas) as a healthier expression of self.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:23 am**

smiths wrote:honestly, the theory of man made global warming is supported by science

the theory against this hypothesis is supported by loons, lies and oil money,
and the post modern idea that any idea as valid as the next

believe what you like, but you will find yourself on the wrong side of this one

Translation of the above:

You're "wrong" if you see a young lady in this picture. My eyes clearly see something else.

And all of the faculties, which I possess and have total confidence in, clearly support what I see.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:31 am**

Sounder wrote:To me, this is the result of an overbearing intellect so dependent on fixed forms that it leaves little room for signals from the heart and creative reinterpretation of our basic situation.

Perhaps you have a deeper analysis of this? And I notice you haven't commented on the reciprocality thread in the data dump.

I'd recommend The Ghost Not if only for conceptual fun.

Taster:

"In the same way, the island of Ibiza where I spent 18 months working through Reciprocality is stuffed full of ex-patriates - particularly English and Germans - who I'd identify as natural immunes that are trapped in the Ghost Not. They don't suffer from the neurochemical component of M0, so the incessant whining and mutual micropolicing that jams coherent thought is missing, but they suffer from the logical component and so have their entire logical field inverted."

"These dippy New Age tossers (spot the value judgement) have retreated from the highly ritual addicted societies they were born into because they aren't members of the dopamine economy and so do not see ritual fixing as an inherent good, and yes they can exploit feedback in cognition so they have some intuitive awareness, but when it comes down to it they say that they are "spirtual" while in fact they are anti-rational!"

@23 Nicely put.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:47 pm**

ok, lets do this the other way round since the actual content with references i have posted has been ignored

please can someone point me to peer reviewed scientific papers explaining alternative theories for what is causing the rapidly changing climate (not weather)

please can someone also point me to research that demonstrates that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not in fact a forcing agent

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:23 pm**

I'd just like to say thanks for the info Smiths.

You do sound a bit like a True Believer though.

Sounder, I always love your posts, you know that? No, of course you don't, or rather didn't, because you do now. I hold you in very great affection.

Sounder wrote:So I am not impressed with the current state of science as it seems more like scientism to me. This impression results from the modern embrace of things like fluoride, GM foods, ethanol, vaccines, aspartame, pharmaceuticals, soil killing chemical fertilizers, DU, etc. It seems like the only place for ‘objectivity’ in science is where it supports moneymaking enterprise, leaving the search for truth to discerning the shape of shadows on a cave wall. I am also pretty sure that there is new tech that is suppressed because it tends to undermine current moneymaking enterprise.

I think there's a lot to be said for the above analysis.

:lovehearts:

Posted: **Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:06 am**

Right now I'm reviewing hundreds of pages of documents and busy preparing comments on a local cement plant's renewal of their Title V air quality permit. Why? Because I want to limit their poisonous emissions to a minimum and I want the world to be a better, cleaner place, much as it was just 200 years ago.

This cement plant is the 4th largest emitter of mercury among all 163 cement plants operating in the US that do not burn hazardous wastes. In its thousands of tons of airborne emissions are other heavy metals, lead, arsenic, cadmium, hydrogen fluoride, selenium, vanadium, beryllium and dozens more. PCBs, dioxins, furons, too. Some as particulate matter on the nano scale, smaller than our technology can capture. It also emits an enormous amount of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and methane and releases more carbon dioxide than a coal fired power plant.

This one plant takes, uses and pollutes 2 million gallons of water each and every day and then discharges it into one of our nation's largest rivers.

The cement kiln dust from this plant contains 22 ton of lead and 4 pounds of mercury, but our government allows this material to be spread on agricultural fields as a liming agent.

There are over a thousand cement plants operating around the world today. And cement manufacturing is but one of our world's very many polluting industries.

Our air, lands, waters, food, organic or not, and our bodies are all contaminated with unnatural man-made chemicals.

What we have done to this Earth in this short period of time is simply shameful, especially because we have knowingly caused this damage in the name of profit for a few.

It matters little to me to try to win over or convince people who doubt our climate is changing because of human activity. It is changing. That you feel a couple of guys working at one small, rather unimportant climate research center in England (which happened to be founded and funded by the oil and gas industry) are at the root of some world conspiracy... well, you go right ahead and believe that. I'll go on working to reduce our pollution just as diligently as ever regardless of what you feel or do. And when I need their input, I'll go to those with more expertise than I have, scientists, chemists and physicians.

There's so much plastic in our oceans that's absorbing solar radiation and holding heat, transferring it to the water, warming it . Our oceans very composition has been altered and become acidified by our discharges of pollutants and sulfur dioxide.

Maybe you could see this as Climate Shift, as in Polar shift to grasp what is occurring around the world.

Believe me, the Powers that be need no phony global warming conspiracy to strip you of your liberties, they can exercise that anytime they want to. And if they do, there will be less you can do about it then you can to help cool the planet.

My compliments to Smiths, Cosmic Cowbell and Operator Kos for providing such good information on this topic.

Kos, Peak Oil is not nearly the problem you perceive it to be. See: http://www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/

Posted: **Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:24 am**

people treat scepticism like it's some intellectual badge when the fact is if after 10 years of available data if you have not managed to come anywhere near a conclusion then you are by definition retarded mentally. To ponce around displaying that retardation like a source of pride only amplifies your stupidity. ooh but you don't trust any sources but comically here you are..making a stand...armed with nothing but a distrust of data generally. Can you not see how absolutely asinine and yet comic that is?
I've been lurking here since this sites inception and I have to say that some of the fresh new faces are intellectually pathetic by accident of birth or design.
Oh well. Funny how those with vigorous blanket distrust of data generally tend to coagulate on forums and pat each other on the back. Quite transparently telling.
Never mind. I'm pretty sure after the novelty of shooting minnows in a barrel passes this too will pass.

Posted: **Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:19 am**

Sounder wrote:
To me, this is the result of an overbearing intellect so dependent on fixed forms that it leaves little room for signals from the heart and creative reinterpretation of our basic situation.

tasmic wrote...
Perhaps you have a deeper analysis of this? And I notice you haven't commented on the reciprocality thread in the data dump.

Yes I do, but it’s been hard to slip pieces of a ‘deeper analysis’ into various threads and to stay on topic at the same time. I used to try to state things more plainly, but I’m afraid this may irritate people more than inform, or simply go over folks head because the basic parameters are not well laid out. The main board is where the action is, but because things move so fast, it can be hard to maintain any particular focus. It might be fun if some unlike minded free speculators could mix it up in the lounge where we might not need to be so quick witted.

tasmic, thanks for the data dump thread link. I try to put limits on computer time so I do miss a lot. That may be a great place to retreat too. While I use my own idiosyncratic terminology, that material may get close enough to my favorite subject to serve as a useful catalyst.

Wow Hammer of Los, thanks for the encouragement and I’ll try to not let it go to my head.

Thanks Iamwhomiam for doing the work you do.

It matters little to me to try to win over or convince people who doubt our climate is changing because of human activity.

I think the toxins we produce are a greater threat than CO2 and that cap and trade takes both money and focus away from dealing with those toxins.

It is changing. That you feel a couple of guys working at one small, rather unimportant climate research center in England (which happened to be founded and funded by the oil and gas industry) are at the root of some world conspiracy... well, you go right ahead and believe that.

They are a branch, not a root.

I'll go on working to reduce our pollution just as diligently as ever regardless of what you feel or do.

Please do, and remember the War on Cancer and other ‘wars’ and how they misallocate resources so as to create a bandwagon big enough to hold the opportunistic posers.

And when I need their input, I'll go to those with more expertise than I have, scientists, chemists and physicians.

As was implied upthread, the process of science is to be respected, but the motives of its institutional representatives are often neither objective nor scientific.

Winsomecowboy2 wrote…

armed with nothing but a distrust of data generally. Can you not see how absolutely asinine and yet comic that is?

Hey come on winsomecowboy2, you are not at all intimidated are you? That’s cool, and let’s agree that if you see ‘nothing but a mistrust of data generally’, then of course the writing is asinine. But is the nothing you see, on the writing or is it on you? Anyway, you should cut me a break on having to make sentences that make any sense at all, me being retarded and all.

My distrust for the consensus making machine is because it always adds fixed costs to my life as it provides a place for some people to woop it up as they play in the money stream.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... -news.aspx

So Internews is probably like most media outlets, except that it is blatant about its non-journalistic agenda, even when it seems to run counter to their own ethical guidelines:
Impartiality. Whether they are working as journalists, trainers, moderators or producers, Internews staff attempt to provide a fair and representative array of relevant viewpoints. It is inappropriate to seek the protections and access that the neutral observer's role demands, and then actively advocate one side of the debate. By leaving the partisan advocacy role to others and making the distinction clear, journalists protect the credibility of their impartial news reports.

Their guidelines on impartiality makes an exception for "education":
While they eschew being "advocates" on partisan issues or political campaigns, some Internews staff will appropriately conduct "issue education campaigns" for journalists and the public, on topics that are chosen in consultation with Internews management. Appropriate topics include: advice on how to cover conflict without inflaming the protagonists; information about public safety concerns such as HIV/AIDS; and illegal trafficking in women and children. Inappropriate advocacy includes: covering an issue or political campaign with a deliberate bias for or against, while claiming to be a professional, impartial journalist; or shaping news content according to the bias or requests of an Internews funder.

So it is bad to shape the news according to the bias of a funder, even for the purposes of education.
Would it surprise you to learn that one of the donors to Internews is the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which established and runs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

Now why would the UNEP be interested in a media organization? It would be interested if the organization supported the UNEP mandate of acting "as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment". But then it would be the case that Internews was shaping the news content according to the bias of a funder.

I wonder how much these folk will be talking about GM foods and other toxins that threaten our lives in their quest for the 'wise use and sustainable development of the global environment'. Roundup Ready crops, Oh boy! Were gonna feed the masses. And who cares about cognative dissonance, we’ll just bury the shit deeper. I’m gonna get right on to a brain sequestration grant writing project. Big demand I’m telling ya, its gonna be big, real big.

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.
-Robert Frost

Posted: **Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:19 pm**

its outrageous that a couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs and discredited the tens of thousands of honest scientists whose work all points overwhelmingly towards the same conclusion

Oh, is that all that happened?

A couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs.

This was the extent of it?

Well this is reassuring, because for a while there the idea was being presented that King of all Graphs, the Elvis of axes, the stern Cartesian visage by which Science countenanced AGW to all the world, in fact had a misplaced bridge, was strung up with frayed strings, placed in an alternate tuning, and was being vigorously bowed by someone with no regard for proper technique.

Fortunate indeed that, in reality, it was only that a couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs , for some were suggesting that said graphs, some being extremely influential in worldwide political policy decisions, should perhaps be subjected to review, that the data they charted and the methods by which they were achieved should be made available so that the results could be replicated. It was claimed that those who produced the graphs refused to supply data or algorithms to those who asked, even if those requests came in FOIA form. It was claimed that those who produced the graphs actually destroyed the data used in them. Further, the outrageous claim was put forward that a couple of important scientists, honest scientists, appeared to be engaging in behavior that contradicted the accepted methods of Science herself, having even actively conspired to pollute the springs feeding the crystal waters of Peer Review.

Good to know then that in truth, it is merely a case where a couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs, for this quells the outrageous claims that documents had come to light which appeared to lend strong credence to these cries of foul, and pacifies the increasing numbers of yeomen who had begun to doubt the strength of the Carboneer's Claymore, some of whom actually demanding to know the composition of it's formidable shining blade and what smithy had forged it.

I am glad such foolishness can now be put to rest.

A couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs.

That's all.

the theory against this hypothesis is supported by loons, lies and oil money,

I know this is true because a guy who shills for the Carboneers and the alternative energy industry , a guy who got $300,000 from a crook to set up a website which holds this very opinion is linked to several times in this thread by really smart rigorous folk who do serious reading on the subject and can work out whats going on here.

[

rigorousintuition.ca

How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?