You haven’t a leg to stand on. Instead study Weart’s most excellant history.

He does not consider ‘adjusted’ data that does not reflect reality to be science. In his day as a student Vangel was taught that when the data did not support a hypothesis it was the hypothesis that was to be changed, not the data.

I am sorry but since RealClimate edits and removes comments from people who cite legitimate scientific papers that refute their thesis and keep playing games with the data I do not believe anything that they write. They do not care about science because what they are interested in is narrative.

If you had bothered to read your own link you would have noted a big problem. The data used does not come from actual readings taken by thermometers. It comes from the adjusted ‘value added’ set that is being created by the very RC authors and supporters. GIven the fact that they add a warming signal and have conveniently reduced past temperatures without justification it is not a surprise that they can come to any conclusion that they want.

But science does not permit this. It DEMANDS that all conclusions be replicated and that all data and methods be made available for independent verification. Citing a data set that has been ‘adjusted’ is not science unless all of the original data and all of the metadata and algorithms that were used to ‘adjust’ the data were made available.

Let us note that even with all of the adjusting being made James Hansen was still forced to admit, “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.” Of course, he had Phil Jones to help him and could claim that, “Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.” But to make the last statement Hansen had to assume that Jones and the national agencies were providing accurate data that reflected reality. But we know that this assumption was not valid.

http://tinyurl.com/492okuv

http://tinyurl.com/4ualno8

http://tinyurl.com/yz7wtqx

http://tinyurl.com/6hb5ooy

As I wrote before, the rats are abandoning the sinking ship and the game is over. All those green energy programs that enriched corporations looking for handouts and green groups are being questioned as voters notice that they are paying much more for power than they used to. And as killing frosts take their toll on Florida’s and Mexico’s crops people are finally waking up to the much bigger threat from cooling.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=174

Professor Barry Brook advances the notion that AGW is causing catastrophic climate change but why? Simple. He is a nuclear power advocate and as such by advancing the AGW argument he advances the cause of nuclear power.

Nice theory, but the evolution of the BNC blog — laid out for all to see in this post and the history that preceded it — testifies that the opposite is actually the case.

Start again by reading the Charney et al. 1979 NRC/NAS report:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181&page=R1

Therefore, logically and as it appears to the remote observer, the AGW argument was always going to be advanced, at some point, by the extreme green fringe. The fact that this has happened in the last 20 years is no surprise at all.

A problem exists when the AGW argument gains public support. For if the public decide to go anti-carbon this will have profound consequences not only for man but for nature.

Soft green technologies are hard on the land. They cause mankind’s land-footprint to increase dramatically. Man has been saving the wilderness with the hard technologies of oil and coal. For a simple reason: you drill a small hole and extract enormous amounts of energy. This is directly opposed to say a solar farm which requires a large surface area to capture the same amount of energy. Simple reasoning suggests the wilderness is threatened by soft green technologies.

Professor Barry Brook advances the notion that AGW is causing catastrophic climate change but why? Simple. He is a nuclear power advocate and as such by advancing the AGW argument he advances the cause of nuclear power.

In other words, denial as opposed to skepticism. Pointless even attempting to engage these people in discussion – they are simply not rational.

The rest of your rant indicates you have no interest in learning the facts; your mind is made up and you don’t want to have to change it to fit the evidence; an anti-scientist.

Therefore I’ll not respond further until such time as you have assimilated Weart’s most excellent history, if that ever happens.

The facts on this issue are clear. The science shows that changes in CO2 concentrations do not drive temperature change. In fact, the opposite is true. (The data shows that the temperature change comes first and that CO2 concentrations follow.) The science also shows that changes in temperature can be attributed to a number of natural factors and that the current temperature level is unexceptional. Of course, everyone should know that the big threat to human beings is exposure to excess cold temperatures because such exposure is much harder to deal with. This is why we have so many more deaths in the winter than in the summer and why years that are exceptionally cold have many more deaths than those that are very hot. Everyone should know that longer growing seasons are favourable to agricultural production and to an increase in biomass. It is cold spells that kill crops and cause frozen lizards to fall off trees in Florida, turtles to drown in the Gulf, cows to die of cold in Vietnam, and fish to die off by the millions in Bolivia. The anti-capitalist greens thought that they could exploit a warm PDO for political purposes and spun a story that could not be supported by the scientific evidence. Now their credibility is shot and voters are turning in anger against many of the policies that the greens were pushing. Sadly, they sacrificed the legitimate environmental movement that was actually concerned about conservation on the altar of vulgar politics.

But also you could learn some climatology by reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Vangel, I’m sure that to your dying day you will rail against the scientific facts of climate change. But no one is listening to you.

Usual tripe from Planet Denial. Any detailed “evidence of data manipulation”, or just the usual third hand disinformation from denial blogs? Any acknowledgement of the spectacular serial fraud of McIntyre and friends? As for trying to compare something as flimsy as an online poll (the Oregon Petition) with no identity verification whatsoever, against the list of *authors* of the IPCC AR4…. logic fail. Usual stuff.