As for your opinion that I am being picky; I couldn't care less what your opinion is since I am right about both the rule and the copyright laws which require the link to be posted with the article.
Originally Posted by iangb
As for the criticism of science today and the perceived bias people suspect AGW scientists of, that exists because the evidence has been found, seen and widely distributed for all of the civilized world to see. Yet we still have people like our messianic president claiming AGW to be absolutely proven beyond any doubt at all.
Until these liars decide to face reality and admit that global warming science has been following an agenda rather than the truth where ever it leads to, then people will continue to doubt their veracity. Here's a new article on this subject:
February 21, 2010American Thinker: Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists
Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists
By Selwyn Duke
At one time, some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed.
Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying.
Really, those issuing Chicken Little warnings had a tough sell from the get-go. We're told that our world has seen at least five major ice ages, but then again, I've also heard four. It has experienced numerous minor ones, although I'm not sure if anyone knows precisely how many. In fact, we hear that the pattern is to have 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials, with 1,500-year cycles of warming and cooling embedded within them. We're told that during part of the Cryogenian Period -- otherwise known as "Snowball Earth" -- the world was completely blanketed with snow and ice, and that during another period, glaciers were almost or completely gone. Furthermore, we're informed that during the latter, there was still, believe it or not, dry land and creatures to tread upon it.
But the creature called man has the capacity to worry, and worry he does. He worried about global cooling in the 1970s and then later about global warming. Then it became "climate change." He worried about causing rising seas, even though we know that the ocean around Florida was once three hundred feet lower and at another time a hundred feet higher. He worried that CO2 -- a naturally occurring gas necessary for life and conducive to plant growth (which is why botanists pump it into greenhouses) -- would spell our end. Never mind how it's said that CO2-level changes follow temperature changes, not the reverse. A hypothesis needed its data.
Then, oh, boy, did we hear about that data. First there was Climategate, with e-mails showing that "scientists" had schemed to suppress inconvenient truths and had refused to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Then came the admission that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was dead wrong about Himalayan ice melt. And other shoes have dropped as well. Remember the IPCC warning that climate change could cause the loss of 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest? It was based on a report by an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund, that misrepresented a study. Then we learned of other notable IPCC sources as well, such as a student's master's dissertation and a sporting magazine.
Next, notorious University of East Anglia head and central Climategate figure Phil Jones may not yet be starting to sing truly, but he is at least singing a different tune. He now admits that the Medieval Warm Period might have been toastier than today, meaning that current temperatures "would not be unprecedented." To those of us who vaguely remember stories about dinosaurs and Mesozoic CO2 levels five to ten times today's and temperatures 11 to 22 degrees greater, this isn't exactly earth-shattering. Jones also admits that there has been no "statistically significant" warming since 1995, something that, when asserted mere months ago, got one branded a flat-earther. In addition, he now says that the Gorelesque view that "the debate is over" is "not my view." Interestingly, though, he never made this known until he was caught green-handed.
Then we heard how the 6,000 weather stations that collected temperature data had mysteriously been reduced to 1,500, and that those eliminated just happened to be in cooler regions. As for examples of those used, journalist Wesley Pruden writes, "Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners." That's almost as bad as positioning one in front of Al Gore's mouth.
But, hey, while the Chicken Little Climateers had a tough sell, they had the Government-Media-Academia-Entertainment Axis on their side and a tight little theory. If it got warmer, it was man's fault. If it got cooler, it was man's fault. If it got warmer in places it was cooler and cooler in places it was warmer, it was man's fault. If the weather became more volatile, it was man's fault. The only thing that could have disproven their theory was if the weather stayed precisely the same henceforth, anywhere and everywhere. Of course, this actually would be unprecedented.
The Climateers, however, can change as quickly as what they claim to care about. For example, robbed of settled-science sleight-of-hand, MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel now states, "We do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific certainty [before acting]."
Ah, that's the ticket. Before, we had to do something because of certainty; now we have to do something because of uncertainty.
Well, my head is spinning. Trying to process all these twists and turns, my mind has become a hodgepodge of information resembling Phil Jones' office.
Yet amidst this exposition of fact and exposure of fiction, one point never changes: We have been had. And one question remains: Will justice be done?
Let us be clear on the gravity of the Climateers' crime: They have used billions of our tax money to fund fraudulent science. And why?
For the purposes of promoting policies that would steal billions more.
And what happens now? Do they just get to say "oops" and slink away?