im a Quackiologist..I study scientists banquished by the collective.

Global Warming: We'll freeze to death or die trying.

Seriously, now, it's time for war. Why is there so much CO2, so much oil being used? PEOPLE! How do we reduce the number of people? Famine, too cruel. Genocide, to punishable. How about another world war? I vote yes, which is likely an insult to any of our armed forces.

I don't really get how poeple on the side against changing energy policy get so much wind in their sails. First off it's outrageous to think that we have absolutely zero impact on our environment or that the results of our actions are immediately perceptible. Even if there were no theory about man-made global warming I would still be concerned about the impact of any changes to our environment.

Second it's clear that enivornmental impacts of fossil fuel extraction and usage seem plenty detrimental to me, global warming or no. Ripping up the landscape for coal mines, massive coal ash spills, oil slicks wiping out wildlife and poisoning the water, acid rain, and so on... all those things suck a pretty big dick on their own without even worrying about the temperature of the earth.

Then you have the potential to get the fuck out of the middle east and let that place implode when the oil money stops coming, I would think most conservatives would like the idea of that... I just don't really see on any level why leading the world towards a green economy would be a bad thing, especially when our bigger political/economic adversaries tend to still be manufacturing countries who will be more adversely impacted than us.

What precisely is it that I've said is bullshit since at this point I've yet to make a claim other than to point out a number of sources and to point out the lack of proof in psycho's claims?

Lots of graphs with squiggly lines all over them. The first thing they do is make reference to the NIWA's website and claim to have registered and thereby been able to download "raw data" that then showed no upward trend. It then goes on to show the "adjustments" and basically claim some nefarious manipulation.

First off I have no access to the same raw data and even if I did would not know what to do with it.

Secondly there are no references whatsoever, no peer review, no publishing by a reputable journal, basically nothing whatsoever to document these claims.

Thirdly the so-called "analysis" abruptly cut off the data at 2000 even though the article itself mentions that data through 2008 was available. What's wrong? Did the data from 2000 to 2008 contradict what they were trying to show?

Fourthly the only names the article lists are that of Terry Dunleavy and Richard Treadgold, neither of which have any credentials in any related scientific field that I could discover. Please correct me if I'm wrong and supply what education and experience either of these folks have that warrents accepting their totally undocumented findings.

Fifthly, and most importantly, why don't *you* take a look the following article New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends that adresses your specific article and contains a number of links to corroborating evidence.

Your so called proof is a total fabrication of lies put out by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition which contains no actual climate scientists. Basically what they did was to combine all the data from different sites as if they were all from a single site.

Here's more evidence of their lies you should take a look at.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise/combining-temperature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/niwa-confirms-temperature-rise

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/3101449/Climate-scientists-attack-criticism

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-warming-real-record-robust-sceptics-wrong/

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear

I'm sorry but the bullshit is yours.

Also I'm not even going to bother to address your reference to Inhofe's so-called debunking of the scientific consensus from 2007. It was crap then and it smells even worse 2 years later.

Finally this doesn't mean that I'm going to bother going into this much detail to refute every piece of drivel that someone posts. It's awful easy to say "Look here" and give a link and then place the burden of proof on the other guy. In the future you need to put a little more effort into your posts, I'm not going to do all your work for you.

My reply #83 shows full well why reputable scientists are reluctant to give their data to people unqualified in the field of climatology that also happen to have a documented agenda. Apparently both Terry Dunleavy and Richard Treadgold are well known bloggers with an AGW denial agenda with absolutely no climatology credentials whatsoever.

Why should scientists give their data to uneducated fools that are only going to "publish" some bullshit whose only point is to cause noise. It doesn't have to be true it only has to provide a smoke screen sufficient to claim that there is some kind of controversy.

Then the real scientists have to spend their time debunking this crap. Heck, I'm certainly sick of having to put in this kind of effort and I'm certainly no qualified climate scientist. I don't blame any of the CRU scientists for not wanting to respond to FOIA requests in the least.

If some nimrod blogger is competent enough to do their own analysis of "real" scientists data then let them go and do the actual legwork of getting their own original data from which to work. But no that would be far too much to ask of a pair of bloggers.

99 times out of 100 these straight "analysis" papers that take someone else's data and use that to come to an entirely different conclusion than the conclusion that credentialed and experienced scientists in the field have arrived at are precisely and exactly total bullshit.

Wind, water, and solar energy are our best bets. It is time for america to be proactive instead of reactive...wait we recently just started making hybrid cars.....its too late.....

In reality my preference is to plop down a couple of hundred or even thousand nuclear plants and that in conjunction with a decent electric car would be the end of the strangle hold the middle east has on this country. It would be a huge economic boom in this country to stop the negative balance of payments that our oil fix costs us.

The problem is that ExxonMobil, Texaco/Chevron and Saudi Arabia wouldn't like that very much and in this and every other country on the planet money gets what money wants. However peak oil is not all that far off and when it occurs there will be no other choice. The good news is that we pretty much have all the technical capability we need to pull it off although because we lack the balls we'll have to wait until it really starts to hurt before we start down that road and due to the long lead time of nuclear there will be a very painful transistion.

If someone want to be regarded as a real scientist, the above is a required cost of doing business. Not doing so, for ANY reason, is the equivalent of hanging a big "Not Legitimate" sign on the research, and anything based on it. This is not optional. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously when they question such research must do the same.

To regain even the semblance of legitimacy, CRU must release the original data they collected or compiled from other sources. They must release any and all corrective factors they used to make data agree with each other, or to calibrate one data set with another. They must release the computer code used to do any corrections, compilations, etc. They must release specific rationales for any data they emphasize above other data, and any data they chose to disregard. This must be done for their work to be considered legitimate science - not related to any sort of scandal that has cropped up, this is to be expected of *any* serious research. That such data and analysis methods have not been released when the work was first published reflects a grave failing of the peer review process; none of this research has met the minimum publication criteria for any other hard science, so why is international policy being based on it?

Moreover, the failings of the CRU research casts doubt on any other research based - even in part - on their data or conclusions. Part of the credibility of science is reproducability - an entirely independant person *must* be able to take your starting position (whether that is a set of chemical reagents, a genetic code, a spectrum taken from a distant star, or a collection of temperature data), use the same process to analyse it, and get the same result. The burden of proof is not on the independant tester, it is on the scientist making the original claim. If they won't release their starting data, and won't release their method of analysis, it is entirely impossible for an independant tester to corroborate their findings.

I support this idea. The opposition to nuclear energy is mostly due to fear and misinformation (thank the Soviets for Chernobyl). It is a shame, because the United States would really benefit from an influx of nuclear power plants.

Mumble's argument:

"I haven't looked at the raw data, and even though everyone on the other side already admitted to adjusting it a long time ago, I'll assume these people are lying without checking for myself."

Instead of googling in a futile effort to be right, use your own trusted site to access the processed satellite data.  Oh look, the outer atmosphere is cooling!  Wait, it hasn't even risen half a degree since 79 at the surface?  Funny how the temperature monitoring stations on the ground are showing such high increases, but those guys that have been surveying them and taking pictures of all the asphalt, air conditioner exhaust vents and other problems are probably funded by big oil, so you don't look there for your explanation.

We were all going to die in the 70's, the ice age was coming.  Temperatures were at record lows.  Some of you idiots buying this bullshit are probably even old enough to remember the nonsense.  Why now, would you get excited over half a degree up from that, only in the lower atmosphere?  You wouldn't, unless you're a complete fucking idiot.  Now the surface stations though, that's something to get excited over.  As long as you measure from the right years, all the disfunctional ones in the mix can give you over twice that, woohoo...

There's a sucker born every minute, and these doom and gloom postulations they come up with every generation take the lot of you.  The only problem is that you morons seem to outnumber thinking individuals by a depressing margin when the craze hits full swing, and by the time you figure it out they've gone and put stupidity into law.