> Smeared with their own words.
oooooooooh. Since their words are all bullsh!t thats nasty stuff to get smeared with.
Note how Reuters editorializes - should read "...even as (climate researchers claim that the) case for...
The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.
Needless to say the emails expose not only fraud by many of the leading "peers" but also an attempt to freeze out any scientist that doesn't agree with the leading peers so that they will never be themselves peers of dissent.
The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.
Global warming emissions (note how Reuters presumes that CO2 is "warming emissions") are obviously higher by all their claims but of course no mention of the cooling reality. As to sea level rise being "80% above past IPCC predictions" - What predictions? When were the predictions made? Not 73%? No info so apparently only the shadow knows.
If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided—the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur—fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.
Once again easy numbers for idiots to digest. Not 1.73 Celsius? How about 2.04 Celsius? Just fodder for twits but it again exposes them as condescending to people of basic intelligence.
This article mentions a major scandal without noting any direct quote from the emails, gives a huge soapbox for Mann and Co. to claim a nefarious conspiracy, and attempts to frame critics as just being "cranky" and thus unworthy of investigation into said critics criticism. There may be a lot of people invested in GW but it is becoming easier and easier to show what an emotional/profitable farce that it is.