Exactly. No one can disprove basic science. They can show anomalies in science, but they can't disprove it.

By the way, most evidence shows that the LIA and the MWP only occurred in regional areas and in the Northern hemisphere. All of the so-called "anomalies" "exposed" by Climategate are region specific and say nothing about factors like ocean temp or global temp.

Also, dynamic inertia is the number 1 culprit.

I haven't heard about fake data. I have heard about real temps being higher than tree rings, but that's it.

Well obviously you haven't been reading the right "bat shit crazy denier" blogs then!

It is quite a horrid situation.

Even if you buy into bad evidence set for as an "Inconvenient Truth", there are scientists that were majorly discredited for false data.

I personally have been wagering into my stance that many care more about their bankroll that accurate data. It has been pretty much the same, within any government funded research in and seemingly before my lifetime.

Sooo, I am still wondering about the severity of global climate change.

I still do not buy into, the idea we are anywhere near a disaster. Making choices to keep the air breathable is always good imo.

Pollution sucks for many other reasons, global health being #1. Seriously, go yell at like China or someone, for making lead clouds or yell at someone to set boundaries through tariffs.

:/

Like the nothing you brought to the table? A little humor for one guy calling another an asshole on tv, and an opinion piece about the Russian secret service? The entire article was filled with innuendo and speculation, while the only thing they seemed to assert was that the information was posted first on a Russian server. Also, they claim a level of sophistication about the particular data "stolen", even though if you apply the law of k.i.s.s.(keep it simple stupid), that particular data set was the subject of the FOI request, so they collected the data (in case they lost) while they fought it's release. Then, when they won, a whistleblower decided to publish the information.

For you to categorize under "unnecessary information I don't care about">>> http://www.petitionproject.org/
and it's summary of peer reviewed science>>> http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

But go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and yell "la la la la" while you continue to cry about "deniers".



Or how about peer review of full and accurate data, rather than peer review of fudged numbers and carefully selected data?



Water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect all by itself, so go ahead and keep freaking about something we have almost no control over, and would do more harm to mankind trying to "remedy" than dealing with any possible effects.

In the spirit of good humor though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 08:37am

Water vapor accounts for .4% of the entire atmosphere and between 1 and 2% at some areas near the surface. It accounts for 66% of the greenhouse effect. It only accounts for 95% if we are talking about some very low cloud coverage over a specific area. Get your facts from somewhere more reliable. You can't argue politics against science and think it counts.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 10:29am