Verified answer

The libs won't ever admit they were wrong or used. There have been all kinds of taxes on the books and proposed that stem from these "studies", we are already paying for this fraud.

You (and many others) have allowed yourself to be duped by the "marketing pressures" that christened what is actually 'climate change' and gave it the (somewhat misleading name) "global warming"....the FACTS remain the same, the average temperature (long-term) of Earth is rising at an unpresidented rate. Are WE causing it? Nobody can be sure. Will it hurt us? Of COURSE it will, so we must do whatever it takes to be prepared. The vast majority of "non-specialists" are too stupid to even understand the problem, let alone help formulate potential survival plans. So (wisely or unwisely) data have been packaged and marketed to create a "mild panic" so that regular folks might do something (anything) that might help.

Unfortunately, all that has happened as a consequence is that people like you (in your inability to see the difference between a "trend" and a handful of discrete data points) have decided "There is no problem!"

This is precisely the same sort of thinking that allows someone to declare "My Grandfather smoked three packs a day, and lived to be 103! How could anyone be so dumb as to believe smoking is bad for them?"

Clearly you hate you grandkids and beyond so much that you don't want to think this through even a little! And that is sad...

Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann.The “trick” Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,” Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~richs/EC/FYS/Mannetal.Ori...

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/4/741/2008/cpd-4-...

Where does it say that any conclusions were drawn from the "trick"?

It said he "tried" it.

If someone came up with a hypothesis, would it be scientific to dismiss it without trying it.

IF, and that is a BIG IF, you had ever created, even a simple, spreadsheet, you would realize that changing the formula in one cell can vastly alter the results of the entire sheet.

In computer modeling the effects are exponential.

You are looking are a conversation between two guys working on a common project which is in progress.

Not something sinister.

Face it dude... science is way out of your league.

One thing that proves climate change is a hoax?

It's not. It's a natural cycle of the earth.

MAN MADE global warming is soft core "THE END IS NEAR! REPENT NOW! BUY CARBON OFFSETS!" Its a declaration of war on CO2 emissions and water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) and all of it is AKA PLANT FOOD. Yes, the government has declared war on plant food.

If you declare war on something harmless, you can say whatever you want about it to scare people into giving you more power. Duh...

Global warming does exist and cannot be disproved . Al Gore says so and every brain dead person who cannot read a temperature chart for the last 10 years which have been in steady decline "cooling" to the intelligent community.

LMAO!

I asked this on my Facebook page today and *crickets*

Well, one of my buddies who is a liberal did say something cool which I appreciated but it didn't exactly address the question.

The reason is because it's not defensible.

Another friend of mine who isn't political spoke with me on the phone about it and she floated the idea that the environment is so important that falsifying data is Ok because the ends justify the means. Of course, when I told her that these people want to put forth legislation that is going to cause her utility bills to grow she quickly changed her mind.

We are all about recycling, using less energy, using high efficiency appliances, weatherizing, using green cleaners, etc. Pollutants are BAD for our BODIES. The planet is going to be Ok. I just don't want to get cancer and die or end up with MRSA because I polluted my environment around me or because I hypersanitized everything around me. Oversanitation in the home using chemical cleaners is bad for you... the Earth can withstand it.

It's also thrifty to be green. When I say I try to live a "greener" life I am talking about putting more green in my wallet. Hahahahaha!

NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-h...

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911230052

First please explain how using the real temperatures is an example of falsifying data. It seems to me that using the real temps is the opposite of falsification.

Context doesn't matter.

This is proof the climate is not changing.