fyi
Dear AGW fanatic,
If you can quit name calling for a moment and please answer the following questions:
Given CO2 is an 800 year lagging response to temperature, how is it assigned the role as a causitive factor?
Given the lack of any global temperature rise in the last 12 years, what is it we’re supposed to be concerned about?
The few recent, isolated temperature records are surpassing records set 80 to 150 years ago, by only a single degree. What was driving temperatures then?
Why do you refuse to investigat Solar cycles as the most significant contributor to climate change?
That’s nothing.
The Nobel committee only recognized Einstein for his paper on the photoeletric effect.
And the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is crap.
Now I feel better. ;)
***************************************EXCERPT******************************************
Mr Lynn says:
Just read the article and the comments so far. The Warmists are piling on, e.g.:
glennpecker 8 hours ago
Are you trying to discredit a person or an entire field of science? If you want to expose an individual for trying to suppress facts, I’m all for it. But the data supporting man induced climate change is [sic] overwhelming and to try to attack an entire field of science over a few emails and individuals is absurd. . .
I wonder where those “overwhelming” data are. . .
/Mr Lynn
climate scientist is to science
as a witch doctor is to medicine
I am a scientist.
I know that if I “used a trick” to “hide the decline” I would be out on my ear.
For whatever reason climate “science” seems to work under a different set of rules.
I know that if I was caught trying to ‘change the peer review process if we have to’ to keep out dissent I would be out on my ear.
For whatever reason climate “science” seems to work under a different set of rules.
Apparently a regular science peer review process would destroy their carefully built up “consensus” by illustrating that there were gaping holes that they couldn’t account for.
Usually in science if a theory cannot account for all the evidence or respond intelligently to peer reviewed scientific challenges - the theory is either changed, modified, or abandoned.
Apparently climate “science” works under a different set of rules.
Good one Forbes.
We don’t have a short term, i.e. one year model on climate. For 60 years we’ve known that complex systems cannot be predicted.
Why this is above the heads of the otherwise smart MSM types escapes me, unless they are not as smart as I thought.
Then again, John Daley is insanely smart, but look where he is politically.
