So is this what the AGW supporters mean by "we can trust the data"?

Now that climate gate has hit the main stream, the AGW supporters are telling us that we can still trust the science, even though the scientist may be biased (and possibly fraudulent). Now, it appears that we can not trust the science, since the people in charge of the raw data, may be corrupting it. Are there any AGW supporters who can defend the adjustments made in this article?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

2009-12-09T13:59:15Z

Nino,
I hate to break the news to you, but you know nothing. There are more forests now than 100 years ago. We can control wild fires, which would normally devastate forests. As for oil, WHO CARES? What else would we use it for? It leaks into the oceans naturally. Why not use it?

Anonymous2009-12-08T14:42:39Z

Favorite Answer

This looks very similar to many other regions that have been adjusted! But if you do not adjust things pretty radically how are you going to cover up a cooling world while claiming global warming. As it will be less than 8 years before the world cools sufficiently for even the lest intelligent individuals without a political goal to realize that the world is getting colder instead of hotter like the AGW con persons are claiming I am going to predict citizen actions against professional warmers within no more than 5 years or so. I imagine at first citizen actions will be no more severe than tarring and feathering them then riding them out of town on rough cut fence rails in the nude. But is the professional warmers keep trying to con the citizens who have seen through the silly liberal hype to the truth it will eventually come down to necktie parties like David Rockefeller's great grandfather eventually scummed to when he tried his cons on a crowd already wise to him.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_20000yrs_temperatures_icecore_Vostok_150dpi.png
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

nino2009-12-08T16:21:27Z

I actually don't need much data to know that humans have bee burning millions of tons of oil during the last 100 years and at the same time destroying forest to build concrete. You don't need to be a scientific to know that is having effects in the environment. We are 7 Billions parasites trashing and destroying the Planet.

All for the sacred Greed

Anonymous2009-12-08T15:19:38Z

The difficulty is we are trying to convince the same people that believe the earth is 10000 years old!

Anonymous2009-12-08T14:31:27Z

They openly admitted they fudged the numbers, so in my opinion, any bad data added into the formula means the end equation is wrong.

Weise Ente2009-12-08T15:57:41Z

Considering that website was the one that claimed commented out code meant the data were manipulated, I'm kinda doubt their claim.

They've already shown themselves to be wholly dishonest.

Show more answers (1)