Do you think this is nice summary of the AGW scam?

It looks pretty accurate to me. I notice Pegminer calls them disconnected but he didn't even try to argue with any of it. The reason is because they were accurate. I notice we don't generally get many arguments of substance from alarmists. Then Bubba tries to pretend that any warming is proof that humans caused it. I remember Pegminer lecturing us that everyone already knows that GW means only human caused warming yet that doesn't seem to stop alarmists from pretending they are the same thing. They call themselves scientists and to me they are just deceptive or are they really that ignorant?

A nice summary?, It's a disconnected series of graphs practically without exposition or explanation. Try publishing that piece of garbage in a journal, or even a popular magazine or newspaper and they'd laugh at you.

That's the great thing about the internet, though, it costs virtually nothing to post junk and with billions of people with internet access you're bound to find some fool that can relate to it.

EDIT: Oh please jim z, stop your whining. This stuff has been dealt with numerous times in here and you know it.

Yes, the northern trees appeared to show cooling after 1960. So what? We HAVE thermometers during that time period, we know that it was warming--that's not in dispute. How many times does the "Hide the decline" have to be discussed before you people understand (or admit) that it wasn't about real temperature?

The second graph is pure garbage--it doesn't even have units on it or tell what it is! It's purporting to show the MWP as proof that it was warmer previously, but as has also been discussed innumerable times, the MWP was not a worldwide warming (that's probably why they're using a graph that would get a flunking grade in a high school science class).

I'm not sure why they're making a big deal of U.S. temperature, last time I heard it was GLOBAL warming. The argument that it hasn't really been warming is getting rather silly, especially now with the new study from the "skeptical" scientists funded by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers agrees with all the other studies.

These yahoos that talk about "data tampering" are always people that have never worked with real data. It's funny they never bring up Roy Spencer and John Christy for their "tampering" that showed the Earth cooling--until they were caught at it and had to change their methods.

[Note to the uninitiated: I don't think Spencer and Christy were really tampering, they were just wrong.]

WARNING ABOUT THE LINK: I went to the home page of "Real Science", and McAfee AntiVirus gave this warning

"We tested this page and blocked content that comes from potentially dangerous or suspicious sites."

I guess that says something about denial blogs too, doesn't it?

"The MWP was inconvenient, so Mann made it disappear."

The lower graph was made with data in 1990. Newer data has shown that only portions of the Earth have shown such variation, and Earth has not.Current evidence is that some parts of the Earth were warm and other parts of the Earth were cool

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Man...

Mann's data correlates well with proxies of solar output.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/sola...

"The 1930s were inconvenient, so Hansen made them disappear."

LOL! That is U. S. temperature data, less than 2% of the Earth's surface. It has negligible effect on global temperature. New data came to light and that is why the U. S. data changed.

"Sea level not rising is inconvenient, so they hid Envisat, normalized it incorrectly, and added a bogus GIA adjustment.

Envisat is not inconvenient. It is a data set which is too short to come to conclusions. It only includes data since 2004.

"NOAA adds half a degree on to measured temperatures since the year 2000 – and then tells us that temperatures have warmed half a degree, and that the ten warmest years have occurred since the year 2000."

"Trenberth pretends that heat is sinking to the bottom of the ocean."

Either the satellite data which Trenberth is relying on is wrong, or the laws of thermodynamics are wrong or he is correct about the heat sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

In short, it is the site to which you link that is the scam.

Madd Maxx

<Just look at the Warmists whiners that are pouring into this thread. They have the audacity to complain about the relative pennies the industries and the Koch brothers spend to defend themselves from the Leftists/Warmists flood of lies.>

I actually looked at the site and deconstructed it like others have done with your favorite movie. Unlike you calling sites like skepticalscience lies without giving any evidence that you even look at them.

<These people tampering with the data need to be in jail.>

Just like anyone who disagrees with you about anything. Just like in Nazi Germany.

I thought the question was ask without indifference, making the relationship to some/most of the responses incoherent. I'm a skeptic and can specifically state why the summary may or may not matter. But its always fun to hear opinion's and I'm enjoying it.

Thanks.

Just look at the Warmists whiners that are pouring into this thread. They have the audacity to complain about the relative pennies the industries and the Koch brothers spend to defend themselves from the Leftists/Warmists flood of lies.

Meanwhile they gorge on the BILLIONS of dollars taxpayers are forced to pay in order to prop-up their commie globalist climate scam. They have no shame.

And yes, that web page is a great summary of the data tampering that is going on. I'm glad somebody finally put it all in one place.

These people tampering with the data need to be in jail and I predict some of them will be sharing space with Bubba before it's all over.

----------------

Why is it that so many of you reject genuine climate scientists yet take for granted whatever some bloke with a fake name writes on a blog?

There's scientists doing actual field research in the Arctic and on Antarctica who after years of research observe that the ice is melting yet someone with a fake name and whose scientific background and education are completely unknown is somehow capable to outsmart all these scientists?

Is that the 'scientific integrity' you all preach about so much?

Looks like a giant load of crap to me. But I wouldn't have expected anything else from you.

Nothing in that steaming pile you linked to changes the (well established) fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that human activities emit gigatons of it a year and that changes to land use affect carbon sequestration and albedo.

By the way, it's still warming.

I think this is all propaganda. A very skeptical scientist, funded in part for the Koch Brothers, looked in great detail at the data and concluded that the alarmists' data were correct.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702044...

The link is to the website of well-known pseudo-science liar. You might as well call this a "nice summary of the Holocaust": http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

The latter is less politically correct, but a similarly monumental yet asinine lie.

Stupid people confuse ranting blogs with science. Thoughtful people refer to science journals for science. This is a nice summary of how stupid people get their news.

Stay in school.