Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
From Ron de Haan (16:49:14) :
I tried to address the issues with Real Climate and my posts were simply deleted.
end quote.
Yup, they do that. How dare you question the popes divine right, and to do it in church too! There are no debates allowed on RC, only supplication and repetition of the catechism.
RC is an interesting exercise in what happens when true believers spend too much time sucking their own exhaust and not enough asking questions. IMHO. Best to stay away from them unless you want to drink the coolaid… or have a great immune system…
From Chris V. (17:34:43) :
Peter (11:34:09) said:
If water vapor was a positive feedback then tropical temperatures would rise much faster than polar temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels. But indications are that the opposite is happening – strongly suggestive of an overall negative feedback.
It’s hard to see how water vapor could be a negative feedback
end quote
Try hysteresis. Think of a light switch. It can go high, or low. Water can go to 100% (then rain) or 0% (ish) when frozen. The acceleration mechanism (feedback) can drive in either direction. Colder leads to lower humidity leads to colder leads to…
Toss in day night cycles, a desert and mountain range or two along with an ocean and ice continents and stir with variable winds. Now you have a chaotic system with heating / cooling of the air (both solar and adiabatic) and increasing / decreasing water loading. We call it weather…
The net effect of the water vapor (more or less heating) is not determinant and may be either positive or negative depending on all the above. That is why sometimes the planet has been an ice ball and sometimes a tropical jungle, the two end states of the switch.
Best evidence is that we get ice ages when the poles are covered or trapped (victory ice driven stability) and jungle when the poles are empty (victory steamy jungle). From this I would assert that the hysteresis balance of the system is driven by land/ice at the poles, not by the nature of water. (Nor the nature of CO2).
It’s this kind of thing that is missing from the AGW thesis, IMHO.
Brendan H:
You’re doing it again, and you’re doing it wrong. When you say “challenge AGW”, you have it exactly backward.
It is the job of those trying to argue their new AGW hypothesis to provide us with convincing, falsifiable evidence that they have discovered a new mechanism to explain global warming [now known as “climate change”]. The challenge is on them to prove AGW.
If I say the moon is made of green cheese, astronomers have no obligation to try and prove me wrong. I have to provide convincing, falsifiable evidence that it’s green cheese up there, if I want my hypothesis to be accepted.
AGW [actually, the AGW/CO2/global warming hypothesis] challenges the accepted theory of natural climate variability. According to the scientific method the burden of proof is on those pushing the new AGW hypothesis.
As stated repeatedly, the current climate is well within normal historical parameters. In fact, the current climate happens to be quite benign.
If it is not… then prove it.
And if it is within natural variability… then the climate alarmists’ AGW/CO2/planetary catastrophe hypothesis fails for lack of any proof. QED.
Finally, you might learn a thing or two by reading Ron de Haan’s post @15:35:08 above.
I think all of us here are fascinated by the science and the technology of the fascinating world we are living in but we do not like it when we are lied to, manipulated and in the end screwed by our own democratic governments policies.
That is where this is all about.
As things develop at this moment (also in reference to the most recent posts by Anthony about the stations and anti-AGW staff losing their jobs, we are all in for a tough ride.
It’s a blog like this that makes us smarter and stronger.
Thanks Anthony, Leif and all off you for your time, effort and sharp minds.
Smokey: “The challenge is on them to prove AGW.”
Well, to show that AGW is the explanation that best fits the evidence. But if you’re going to make a counter-claim that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” you are then in the position of having to defend that claim.
The only way to avoid that position is not to make any such claim. Of course, that’s very difficult to achieve in real-life debates, since you are going to be challenged to defend your position.
That’s probably unfair, because the very existence of AGW theory creates a situation where sceptics by default become defenders of the traditional view. But that is the case any time a new theory is proposed.
Brendan H:
So if I laugh at the notion that the moon is made of green cheese, I have to defend the claim that it’s not?
Despite all the frantic hand-waving, the climate is normal. But some folks won’t ever be convinced of that.
I give up. Good night.
This should be easy (hmmm… am I digging a hole for myself)
@Brendan H:.
1. Where do you stand on the proposal that current climatic conditions are within/or outside of natural climatic conditions?
2. If “outside of” – on what physical evidence do you base your assessment?
3. If “outside of” – what are the defined limits of natural climate variability that definitively describe the boundaries of natural climate variability?
4. If “outside of” – what are the specific weather events that demonstrate that the natural climate variability has been execeeded.
Good luck with that – I’m not actually aware that anyone has conclusively defined the boundaries of natural climate variation, and such boundaries would have to be defined to assert that current climatic conditions are outside of the realm of natural variation.
If asserting that current climatic conditions are – in fact- outside of the realm of natural climatic variation – are you assuming that they are man-made climatic conditions, and presumably caused by man-made emissions of CO2?
For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t see anything out of the ordinary in our current world climate, or my local climate. I also see no convincing evidence that man-made emissions of CO2 cause any climatic effects whatsoever. I work in software and have no connection to any energy company.
Happy to have my ignorance illuminated.
Also @ur momisugly Brendan H.
Check out the post at http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/two-mile-deep-antarctic-ice-core-reveals-stupidity-of-agw-catastrophism/
And the reference to the 3,230-meter ice core extracted at “Dome C”, 75S 123E’s Concordia Base in Antarctica.
Like I said, outside of natural variation that includes temperatures +5C above and -10C below our current values.
E.M. Smith:(16:23:55) :
From this I would assert that the hysteresis balance of the system is driven by land/ice at the poles, not by the nature of water. (Nor the nature of CO2).
I think many geologists would disagree with a part of this assessment. During the “snowball earth” episode, both poles were land free.
The current ice age (which we are now in) began shortly after India slammed into Asia and raised the Himalayas. The temperature has been steadily dropping ever since. Ice at the poles does not change the amount of radiation reflected out of Earth’s system near as effectively as ice at low latitudes. Remember, polar ice gets very little sun in the summer, and none at all in the winter. Ice in the tropics receives (and can thus reflect) much more sunlight.
Brendon H, Smokey,
I think it is very clear that the concept of AGW is used to enforce a gigantic social and economic shift.
The institutions that are involved are the united Nations and all the governments that comply with the CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons reduction targets (CO2) of 80% by 2050 based on 1990 emissions, and also the use of land etc. (Chapter 21 UN).
This is nothing more that a brake on human activity and population growth.
The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.
This is why Obama wants a Civil Army and this is why his Global fight against Climate Change is No. 1 on his priority list.
The question is: do we want this?
It is my conclusion that any debate about who is right or who is wrong about AGW is completely beside the point.
So is the argument that the recent warming has reversed in cooling.
It simply does not matter.
The political decisions have been taken a long time ago. Consensus has been achieved through all political camps.
Because there has never been a public discussion about this “coup,” people have no clue what is awaiting them.
I personally think there is no reason whatsoever to reduce our world populations by destroying the very basis of our existence. It’s a negative approach and the people who have initiated this concept belong in a mental institution. This also goes for the people that have facilitated their talents and services like Hanson and Gore to deceive humanity.
I am convinced that we have a long time to go before carbon fuels and any other necessary resources become scarce as long as we prevent nuclear conflicts and control the destruction of habitats that ensure biodiversity.
I am convinced that through science and technology we will be able to provide a good standard of living for even more people than the current world population.
Solving the problem of over population and earth biodiversity through destruction of the economic system of the West is nothing more than treason.
Besides that, it is also very risky.
There will be significant resistance as soon as people understand what is going on. There will be nations like Russia and China that will make use of any opportunity to take power.
So unless you are eager to learn Chinese or Russian, we better start to think about the real life consequences of the AGW policies.
I’ve read some stuff and links on http://green-agenda.com The links to the Club of Rome, Chapter 21 of the UN and many other links about facilitating entities, private persons and institutions.
Anyhow it makes clear why GISS temperature are corrupted, why NOAA is telling us year after year that the trends are above normal, why the Media are biased, and why our politicians are acting crazy.
It’s all part of an agenda, and I even doubt it is green.
Smokey: “So if I laugh at the notion that the moon is made of green cheese, I have to defend the claim that it’s not?”
“The climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not equivalent to “the moon is not made of green cheese”. One is a positive claim, the other a negative. It’s not possible to prove a negative.
“…the climate is normal.”
This is a positive claim. It says that ‘x is the case’. A positive claim can be argued for, and in most debates the participants expect to see such an argument. Otherwise, debates devolve into a series of assertions. But assertion is not argument, it’s just saying stuff.
Coach: I am not so sure about that. The extended cold period during the late Paleozoic saw average temperatures as low as c. 12°C. But the maps I have handy show land at or very near the South Pole from at least the Devonian period all the way through to the Permian. And a walloping big icecap on Gondwana.
It’s possible the scholarship has changed regarding those maps, I suppose. Am I wrong here? Or do you mean a different period of time?
Brendan H says:
The Sun will rise tomorrow!
I will die one day!
Children will grow up into adults!
Caterpillars will continue to change into moths and butterflies!
Good luck with your ridiculous argument.
Ron de Haan (15:35:08) :
Sorry leif, here we go again!!!!
Global Warming? Bring it On!
By Gregory Young
Almost nothing in the article has anything to do with the Sun, all the rest is very likely true, and the debunking of AGW does not depend on the Sun.
A classical example of the misinformation that is floating around is the cosmic ray intensity. The GCRs returns to the same value at every solar minimum and the value right now is what is was in the mid 1960s and as it was in the mid 1980s. Solar activity in 1954 was even lower than today. And so on. We have been over these same tired arguments again and again, and it doesn’t seem to make any difference to repeat them any more. Suffice it just to mention that as solar activity picks up the next several years, we should [according to the argument of the article] expect rising temperatures in the years to come, so ‘bring it on’ is very apt. The AGW people will of course just say that it is rising CO2 overwhelming the recent cooling, so it may actually weaken your arguments against AGW, as their prediction [rising temps] will be borne out [albeit by your idea of rising solar activity].
E.M.Smith (15:56:50) :
On a longer term, why is the Bond Event climate cycle somewhat correlated with the 1500 year solar cyclicality, or is it a coincidence?
It cannot be a coincidence because there is no 1500 year solar period.
Leif,
I was a bit reluctant to post another article that mentioned the cosmic ray theory right after you debunked it.
That’s why I made the remark “Sorry Leif, here we go again”.
I have understood your message well.
Thank you very much for your answers.
Anyhow where I stay at the moment we just have received a nice pack of fresh snow.
Two years ago the regional government rang the bells because they were convinced winter sports activities ad come to an end due to a lack of snow.
They stopped investments in new ski lifts and ordered an alternative economic plan for the Alpine region.
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/18_Predictions_Off_Piste.html
I am convinced next Monday there will be a newspaper explaining the cold and the snow was caused by ” extremely dangerous human induced runaway global warming as the driver of climate change”. Human induced you say? Yes, but we are working on that.
Some people see beyond the minor arguments, and understand the big picture. Ron de Haan [21:30:06] is one of those rare individuals.
Most Americans [and most world citizens, for that matter] do not care much about carbon dioxide. They don’t even understand it, or how very necessary and beneficial it is.
The public is constantly bombarded by the media’s scare-mongering about catastrophic global warming. Being scientifically uninterested, they simply accept what they are being told 24/7/365 about “evil” CO2.
As the very perceptive H.L. Mencken noted, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
That illusion of “safety” entails giving up our freedoms to those putative saviors. And once a basic freedom is given away, it is extremely difficult to ever regain it.
Promoting the unstated [but very real] goal of control of the political process are corrupt people and entities like the UN/IPCC, George Soros, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, James Suzuki, and many others who, for self-aggrandizing reasons, promote climate dishonesty. They run away from any real debate over their assertions — which tells us all we need to know about their honesty and their motives.
Sites like WUWT, Climate Audit and others, and their knowledgeable commenters, are valiantly fighting this misinformation tide with rational discourse, backed by facts.
But I wonder if that is sufficient against George Soros’ $300,000,000 budget allocated to the Al Gore paradigm of climate catastrophe. Big money is an inexorable force. And continuous advertising, whether honest or not, as we all know is very effective in controlling the masses.
The Age of Enlightenment has run its course, and the forces of reason are fighting a rearguard action against the forces of misinformation and eventual dictatorship.
No one can predict the future, and it is still possible to win the battle for the public’s hearts and minds. But fighting the insidious forces constantly trumpeting climate catastrophe, with unlimited funds at their disposal, will require immense fortitude.
Truth is fragile. Like freedom, unless it is constantly defended, it will be smothered by corruption and lies, as history makes clear. Eventually, the truth prevails — but that may happen on a decades to centuries timeline. Right now, the leftist propaganda machine has the upper hand. We have no choice but to fight, and fight hard.
If it were not for sites like this, the purveyors of globaloney would already have set the agenda, and there would be nothing we could do about it. So all is not lost. Keep putting out the truth, and demand debate and accountability. Because dishonest propaganda can not tolerate the light of day.
Brendan H:
What you’re really saying is, “well, if the moon isn’t made of green cheese, then what is it made of?”
Ron de Haan and Smokey:
There is no “world wide conspiracy” using global warming as an excuse to deprive you of your rights. There are lots of easier ways to do that.
The fact that the reasonable skeptics never seem to counter the “conspiracy rants” of the tin-foil hat crowd within their ranks really hurts the credibility of the skeptic side, IMO.
I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.
Peter: “What you’re really saying is, “well, if the moon isn’t made of green cheese, then what is it made of?”
Not exactly, and the green cheese idea wasn’t mine. The original claim was: “The burden of proof is on the alarmists, and their proposed AGW hypothesis…” I agreed with this assertion, but it was followed by: “…not on the accepted paradigm that the climate is well within normal historical parameters”.
I challenged the second claim. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that the climate is well within normal historical [rather, geological] parameters because this is a positive claim.
It might be assumed that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” is too well-attested to be challenged. But all I need do is point to the 30-odd percent human contribution to CO2 levels to show that “the climate is well within normal historical parameters” is not relevant, since the human-induced rise in not “normal”.
Prior to AGW, one could happily conclude that any climate change was within normal parameters, but now that AGW is on the table, previously accepted understandings, such as what constitutes ‘normal’ climate change, have become open to challenge.
“I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.”
I would like to see some documentation on this assertion.
Is a “nutter” someone who believes warming is accelerating and also believes in reincarnation? Perhaps there are quite a few “nutters” at the top of the AGW foodchain as well.
EvanJones
But the maps I have handy show land at or very near the South Pole from at least the Devonian period all the way through to the Permian. And a walloping big icecap on Gondwana.
It’s possible the scholarship has changed regarding those maps, I suppose. Am I wrong here? Or do you mean a different period of time?
I was referencing geologist Douglass McDougall from his work “Frozen Earth”. It is a book on the geology of the planet during the last ice ages, and how geologists have come to their conclusions. In the book he maps and claims that during the the last two Ice ages, the poles were mostly land free, in particular the Frozen Earth age. He makes no claim about the pre-cambian ice age, because the data from back then is pretty sketchy. It is 2004 material. Since geology of this field is evolving rapidly each year, it could be out dated. I will try to locate a more current source for the position of land masses during the last ice ages.
Smokey,
What triggered me was the fanatic attitude of the (current Greenpeace Organization and the media using WWF statements about our environment as a basic source of the daily news about climate change.
A few years ago I made a cycle tour along the river Rhine.
The Germans just finished a dike project to protect the country from extreme water levels to prevent flooding.
On top of the dike they constructed a small road for cyclists.
Half way the route, the road was suddenly blocked by a gate and a sign stated that the road was blocked because part of the dike structure was reserved as a bird resort according EU obligations. That was funny because apart from a few seagulls there were no birds.
The detour led to a busy road where the cyclists and fast traffic were not separated.
On this road every year over 10 cyclists were killed by fast driving traffic coming up from behind. Very dangerous.
When I had a closer look at the matter I found out that these kind of stupid measures were initiated by the UN Chapter 21 which were adapted by the EC.
I am confident that the use of the dike by cyclists would not do any harm to any bird.
But the detour killed people.
The construction of a safe detour for the cyclists was made impossible because of the same restrictions that forced the local authorities to close the dike road.
For me this was an indication that the UN (and the EC) is not about people at all.
It’s about restricting people at any price based on a tree huger agenda made by lunatics.
Local communities are confronted with very hard sanctions if a country does not meet the demands set by the EU rulings.
Non compliance results in very high fines that bankrupt a local community within months.
It simply proves that a strong control mechanism is in place and it works, even if the local people do not agree.
According to Brussels it’s democratic. It is the choice of the people they say.
I remember a green organization cutting down American Chestnut trees in the Netherlands because these trees did not belong to the original vegetation.
These beautiful trees dominated the landscape for many generations.
The totalitarian greens did not like them and simply destroyed a landmark environment.
This too was a “democratic” decision but a very hard sell to the locals that grew up with the trees.
For me it is clear that a group of crazy and corrupt hypocrites have declared war on humanity.
They have pulled their nets at the same moment we experience the cold induced by the current economic crises which (in my opinion) was triggered on purpose.
The policies to offset the crises will be sold to humanity as “inevitable” for the survival of our economy and the rescue of our planet.
Do not be fooled by the nature of the measures because they accumulate power in the wrong hands and make matters much worse.
The introduction of legislation to reduce the use of our resources and the steep rise in energy prices (wind and solar in need of conventional sources for back-up will double or even triple the electricity price compared to coal) will undermine our economies further. Energy intensive industries will leave the county and cause more
job losses. The spiral continues.
Once again we find ourselves to live in an age where demagogues are rewarded for spreading plain lies and mass hysteria makes dialogue impossible.
Reason and objectivity are punished, people start losing their jobs because they go against the consensus.
The democratic chosen President elect wants a civil army and asks to join his “movement” to lead us to “change”. The people cheer.
But he lies to us about Climate Change and the threats to the world so I don’t trust him.
The economic downturn will force many desperate people who have lost their jobs their retirement funds and their homes to join the ranks of the new civil army (part of the president elect plan to create 2.5 million new jobs) that will be used to enforce the lunatic laws that wreck our way of life.
It’s a proven concept of control and if you do not believe me read the history books.
We have been there before and a very high price was paid.
In the end the sum of all these well intended but insane policies will be nothing more than a disguise for crimes against humanity and at their full extend they will shadow the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot put together.
It’s defeat of capitalism and the free world and it’s all done by consent and the will of the people. The endgame is the establishment of a world government.
Do we want that? I don’t.
The four horsemen of Strife, War, Famine and Death have saddled their horses.
They will ride when our energy systems break down, our means of distribution are cut and agricultural output is limited by draconian measures to cut emissions and use of resources. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa the horsemen are well underway.
Almost 1 billion people are on the brink of starvation right now and they are not number one on our priority list. They should be.
The planned civil army, just as well armed as our military, in the end will lash out to it’s own people in the name of the law and democracy.
Do we want that? There is a 50% chance it happens if such an army is in place.
I would not bet my life on 50% chance so I don’t want such an army.
This is the moment we have to stand up and speak out.
We do not want this. We reject any policy based on lies and it does not matter if it come from teh EC, the UN or the Government of the USA.
We have to confront every lie that is told and contact our media, our representatives, the UN and every person that tells AGW BS. We have to make clear what’s really at stake here.
We have to join the ranks with people like Mr. Aznar, the former leader of Spain, with the current President of the Czech Republic, the scientists, the bloggs and millions of others whose opinions are neglected and whose opinions are not heard.
In the current frenzy that burns trillions of dollars our number one priority should be to help the hungry. Despite the mind boggling numbers this help comes at a bargain price compared to the billions that are spend on bail outs.
Climate change should not even be on the priority list of the new US Government.
The net created by the people behind the Global Warming scare however are extremely strong and powerful and they are now in full control of almost all strategic positions and offices vital for ruling our governments and our administrations.
I believe we have nothing to lose and we should cease the moment to do what we can.
I we fail we will soon find out what the price of freedom is worth.
Questioning the GISS data produced by Hansen is an important part of the quest to save our freedom
This is how I think about it.
Chris V. (09:07:52) :
Ron de Haan and Smokey:
“There is no “world wide conspiracy” using global warming as an excuse to deprive you of your rights. There are lots of easier ways to do that.
The fact that the reasonable skeptics never seem to counter the “conspiracy rants” of the tin-foil hat crowd within their ranks really hurts the credibility of the skeptic side, IMO.
I know that all the skeptics aren’t nutters, but the proportion of nutters within the skeptical community seems rather high.”
Chris,
If they use “another” way they make themselves liable to crimes against humanity.
Don’t you see it?
If you want to know about liberties have a look at the current plan the Briys have for the introduction of a so called “Kyoto Pass” that keeps track of your personal carbon foot print. All the energy you buy, tickets you book, everything is registered.
The moment your credits are used up you have to buy new but at what price?
The eagerness and the pressure that the British Government showed to kick the 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 through Parliament made me wonder.
They simple have committed economic suicide. You tell me Chris, how credible is that? It must be very credible because the US will do the same.
So maybe you could reconsider your remark about “nutters”.
I certainly would be pleased. But if you really want a list of all the people that would qualify, let me know and I send you a list.
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/16_Dangerous_Economics.html
Ron de Haan (16:48:01) :
In an earlier post, you said:
The legislation will end our freedom and our way of life, and turn our democracies in “eco socialist” dictatorships with unlimited powers. Having control over CO2 is having control over the economy, the food chain and…life.
I have no idea what the Brits are doing (Kyoto pass?), but I hardly see how a carbon cap and trade system, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax (as Hansen has suggested) will “end our freedom and way of life”.
Al Gore, who got a D in college Science, and followed that up with one of the most inept things that anyone could do — actually flunking out of Divinity School — was nominated and awarded the Nobel Prize for scientific achievement!!
Apparently someone here believes there couldn’t possibly have been a conspiracy by the Nobel Committee to anoint such an undeserving clown [who couldn’t even get a single electoral vote from his home state, when running against the lackluster George Bush].
Now Fat Albert is a Nobel laureate! You just can’t make this stuff up.
Gore didn’t get his Nobel Prize for diligently working for twenty years on difficult climate problems. No, indeed. This
esteemedrecipient of the Nobel Prize got it for an error-riddled science fiction propaganda film. Please explain that the Nobel Committee didn’t get their heads together and decide to pretend that their political agenda was science. See, that’s a “conspiracy.”A good place to start reading about the climate conspiracy to divert public funds into the undeserving pockets of certain people living off the taxpayers is the Wegman Report to Congress.
Prof. Wegman, et. al., shows how badly the peer review process among a very small group of mutually back scratching, taxpayer funded scientists has been corrupted. The dishonesty among those scientists [followers of the disreputable James Hansen] has fallen to the level of the Nobel Committee’s political corruption. That is also a conspiracy. Read the report if you doubt it.
And of course there is the UN’s IPCC. Please explain why you think they are innocent of conspiring to convince the world that runaway global warming is right around the corner. Is that, in your opinion, science? Keep in mind that no official dissenting views are permitted by the UN.
And don’t forget the NOAA, GISS, etc. Why would they refuse to disclose to the taxpaying public the raw data that they subsequently “adjust,” before spoon-feeding everyone their altered results? Are they being aboveboard? Or are they engaging in a conspiracy to propagate a particular hypothesis? Which is it? You tell me.
Maybe it’s easier and more emotionally satisfying to just engage in ad hominem attacks because you can not refute the evidence right in front of you. Call your opponent crazy. In need of a tinfoil hat. Then you win the argument. Is that what you believe?
Recall that in 1775 Adam Smith wrote that two businessmen getting their heads together would almost always conspire to set prices. To assume now, with the $Billions at stake, that no one is conspiring to game the system is foolish at best.