or anyone who wants to see what the graphs really look like, here is a picture. This data plot looks downright weird. Notice how all of the markers except the red (measured temperatures) looks to be starting back down at the year 2000.
The Chicken

"But it's not as if CRU is the only place with climate data, and it's not as if their data sets were out of the ordinary. So are you alleging a world-wide conspiracy?"
Not a conspiracy, but if the data set NASA uses were calibrated with the CRU data, then their numbers are just as corrupted. If success in the field required that ones numbers match up with CRU's data sets, others may (only "may") have fudged their data. We have no way of knowing.
That's why all of the raw data and the algorithms used to adjust the numbers need to be released. For it to be science, it has to be reproducible, but it can't be reproduced if others don't have access. That applies for not just CRU but all major climate data set (raw data, adjusted data, and how the adjustment was applied).
The "junk science" aspect is apparent to me in the programming notes, both inline comments and the Harry readme text. All of the fudging of data in order to combine it somehow...making up station numbers and hoping there wasn't duplication...lack of quality test with fixed data sets and pre-determined results...all the rest. There appears to be no real quality in the most basic data on which all other calculations rest. GIGO.
It should be treated as junk unless and until it is fully released and reproduced.

"the skeptical guest did not express the florid conclusions in the OP. There was a consensus that conservation and alternate energy sources are prudent steps."
Can you point me to where Jimmy said (in so many words) "let's not conserve energy or seek alternate sources of it"? Also, I don't think you proved that Jimmy was unscientific in his reaction.

On CNN, this issue was debated from both sides and the skeptical guest did not express the florid conclusions in the OP. There was a consensus that conservation and alternate energy sources are prudent steps.
The skeptical guest said this would lead to better climate science.
So let's look at the data and be scientists about it. Doing a victory dance does not lead to better science.

Hide the decline :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Jimmy, I've been following this issue for decades. It's especially interesting to me because I have a degree in Geology (so I know that the climate has changed a lot over the years).
I am also skeptical of AGW, but the "Climategate" emails do not by any stretch prove that all of AGW is "junk science."
The emails seem to indicate the same sort of bad motives we've seen among scientists in so many other areas. E.g., a pc-style dismissal of anybody who doesn't toe their line. An arrogance towards people who don't believe everything they say. Attempts to stifle dissent. And even, perhaps, some funny business with the data.
But it's not as if CRU is the only place with climate data, and it's not as if their data sets were out of the ordinary. So are you alleging a world-wide conspiracy?
You need to be careful to keep two things separate (which most people don't). (1) Is the globe getting warmer. (2) Is the warming due to human activity.
It's entirely reasonable to admit 1 but deny 2.

Some ask, Who wants to be a billionaire?
And Al Gore has testified: "[Sigh]... I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us. And I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And, Congresswoman, if you're... if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me... Every penny that I have made has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book... from any investments from renewable energy. I have been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? ... I'm proud of it. I'm proud of it."
And has said: "I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service," Mr. Gore wrote. "As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way."

Yet another case of leftists lying. Surprise, surprise.
It won't matter, Congress will pass Crap & Tax next year. Al Gore will still become a billionaire.

"(It)'s not quite dead".

My Goodness, I've killed the combox.
The Chicken

Ahem, Can THEIR data reproduce current data as well as make accurate predictions?
Boys and girls out there, Chicken says, "There are three sound-alike words (adults call them homophones): there, their, and they're." Can you spot the flaw in my last post (corrected, above)? Circle the mistake with a red crayon (after printing it out - do not mark up the computer screen!) and ask the pronoun fairy to leave a nickel under your parent's pillow with your name on it . It's not THEIR money and THEY'RE obligated to take it from THERE and give it to you (provided the pronoun fairy can correctly spell your name).
This message is a public service provided by the Guild of Pronoun Fairies, local 101a.
The Chicken
P. S., Never post while giving a final exam.

People, here, might find Richard Feynmann's Cal Tech commencement speech enlightening[Note: there is a slightly lurid description of nude hot tub bathers towards the beginning. R-rated, not X].
Did the climate people standardize their data? Against what? Can there data reproduce current data as well as make accurate predictions? Some models have been out long enough to see if they have made accurate predictions. How many have?
The Chicken

David,
And these facts prove its truthfulness?

These facts demonstrate how comparing AIT with your research papers, or even comparing AIT with virtually any other documentary to date, is like comparing apples to oranges.
As to the film's "truthfulness", the judge's opinion was that AIT "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science was used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme," and that all four of the film's major scientific points (as found by the court) "are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists." The judge accepted the witness evidence that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."
The judge looked at a "long schedule" of alleged errors and exaggerations but was only persuaded that nine of these were of relevance. He ruled that these nine should be identified and discussed as revisions to the already existing Guidance Notes for the film to avoid the appearance of either the DFES, or local schools, promoting "partisan" views. As such, the final length of the Guidance Notes (which is 58 pages, not 70 pages) does not constitute the number of pages of scientific corrections ordered by the judge but instead reflects the length of the already existing guidance notes plus revisions mandated by the judge to avoid a one-sided political presentation, to explain where AIT deviated from the consensus view as set out in the IPCC report and to identify that there are also views of "skeptics" who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC.
You can view the Guidance Notes for the film here. There you will see that it's a teaching guide (e.g. containing non-controversial questions for students like "What does ice look like?" and "Is hot or cold water more dense?") and not a document of scientific corrections.

To all those Climategate apologists who seem to think that the story here is the "stolen" emails rather than the fabricated data, I have only two words in response: Pentagon papers.

Terry,
The Inconvenient Truth is... a controversial 94-minute Academy Award winning movie documentary (the first documentary to win 2 Oscars and the first to win a best original song Oscar) featuring a former Vice President of the U.S.
And these facts prove its truthfulness? Being Vice pres doesn't make one a climatologist, and the academy will gives Oscars to practically anyone who promotes a message they like, factual or otherwise (Michael Moore, anyone?).
...that was made subject to litigation in the UK because someone wanted to distribute it in state schools throughout the UK as a teaching aid. How many of those have you ever done?
Me? None, but I have seen plenty of good ones, and they usually don't have 70 pages of guidance notes attached. ;-D
As to your papers, I could write 70 pages of "guidance notes" on any of them if a UK judge ordered me to. It might be 70 pages of rubbish (or maybe not), but it would be 70 pages.
I have no doubt you could. ;-) The U.K. documentary case, however, was about Mr. Gore's work, and they found that it needed at least a few facts clarified.
Thanks for the reply. I also apologize to all for going off-topic on Gore's movie.

SDG, I agree with your impression of things. I think people may be reading more into what Jimmy said than what is really there. It would appear that the some of the core claims regarding AGW are based on junk science...heavily polluted data that makes the conclusions worthless. But it's easy for a reader to jump to the conclusion that Jimmy is claiming that AGW doesn't exist at all. If he believes that, he hasn't said so in this post.
All that I see Jimmy saying is that "the man-made global warming claim is based on junk science." Since CRU data is so central to the IPCC AR4, he's mostly right. The only area where I could take issue with his statement is that it implies that ALL such claims are based on junk science (implied absolute), instead of limiting the junk science label to CRU-based research. But I just don't know how much the CRU data influenced other research, so even the implied absolute could be right.

MeilinPR. I am not so sure that the store in question didn't mean to offend. If I seen this in my high street I would be very hurt and offended. I see things like this as a mark of the times, especially within Christian societies, where the sacred is sacred no more. We are so sophisticated these days. Our intellect has left us blind.
Try depicting Muhammad in this thought provoking fashion and see what happens. When I look at a nativity seen I think of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Joseph, the angels, Salvation and so on.
I am a man and this Nativity scene brings thoughts of a sexual nature to my mind, and any man who says otherwise is lying to himself.
It’s just something I do not want to think about when contemplating the birth of my saviour.
So I believe the store did mean to offend or the window dresser was physically blind
(I think not) and put the wrong dress on THE MOTHER OF GOD.

Josua,
Creo que el Sr. Akin si sabe algo de español, pero te sugiero que le envies un e-mail... o mejor trata Catholic Answers.
Brian,
The pose the doll representing Virgin Mary and the shortness of her dress is unfortunate, but I think otherwise the display is fine. It seems to me a pious fashionista's take on the Nativity. Madison's spokespersons claim the store didn't mean to offend, and I believe them.
For another modern take on the Nativity, see here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/10/wdtprs-psa-historic...

off topic i know, but did any of you see this.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-363871
No respect at all. Christians should boycott these stores.

Yes, but it would still be white crayon on white paper.

For others read black where I read white.

As to your papers, I could write 70 pages of "guidance notes" on any of them if a UK judge ordered me to. It might be 70 pages of rubbish (or maybe not), but it would be 70 pages.
Yes, but it would still be white crayon on white paper.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

That may be right. For my part, I can't name a "broadly accurate" research paper I have ever done which needed 70 pages of corrective notes. Maybe apples and oranges

David, yes, apples and oranges. The Inconvenient Truth is not one of your research papers. It's a controversial 94-minute Academy Award winning movie documentary (the first documentary to win 2 Oscars and the first to win a best original song Oscar) featuring a former Vice President of the U.S. that was made subject to litigation in the UK because someone wanted to distribute it in state schools throughout the UK as a teaching aid. How many of those have you ever done? As to your papers, I could write 70 pages of "guidance notes" on any of them if a UK judge ordered me to. It might be 70 pages of rubbish (or maybe not), but it would be 70 pages.

FORTRAN 77? LUXURY!
I learned my FORTRAN on FORTRAN IV.
ON PUNCHED CARDS!
Try to tell that to this year's graduates and they won't believe you.

That's ok. What's a spoiler among friends? ;-D

Sorry, David B. At least I didn't say whether Monk lived or died or who poisoned him or how or with what poison. Consider it a teaser. Sorry, again :(
The Chicken

The Masked Chicken,
"Monk has been poisoned an..."
You might have given a spoiler warning for those Monk fans (moi) who are waiting for the DVD. :-( ;-)

Terry, thanks for the response.
"On the other hand, the same UK judge ... concluded: "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'""
That may be right. For my part, I can't name a "broadly accurate" research paper I have ever done which needed 70 pages of corrective notes. Maybe apples and oranges, but that is my view. :-D

Saludos:
Jimmy Akin
¿Dominas Español?
Deseo preguntarte sobre la Peshitta
¿Es cierto que en el ¨New Testament¨aparece YHWH?.
Soy nuevo en este foro y entre con el fin de hacerte esta pregunta.
josua3000@yahoo.com.mx

Saludos:
Jimmy Akin
¿Dominas Español?
Deseo preguntarte sobre la Peshitta
¿Es cierto que en el ¨New Testament¨aparece YHWH?.
Soy nuevo en este foro y entre con el fin de hacerte esta pregunta.
josua3000@yahoo.com.mx

Two thoughts on this:
1. As to the hand-wringing over the "stolen" or "hacked" e-mails, what do you suppose the response from the MSM would be had such damning e-mails been "stolen" from Haliburton? I would reckon that the hackers would be the featured guests in a ticker-tape parade.
2. Many a wise man has made the point that one should "follow the money." And if the point isn't proven by simply examining the sharp increase in Al Gore's personal wealth due to this fraud, there are plenty of filthy money trails leading to academia, local governments, and many "alternative energy" companies. This is the same MO as the hucksters and snake oil salesmen of the past, just expanded to a degree to which the pioneers of fraud could have only dreamed.

"Sure, but it goes both ways: some conservative skeptics of AGW paint the issue as a massive political conspiracy. I am inclined to believe that most policy makers and most scientists -- even climate scientists -- are mainly good people trying to do mainly good work."

I think we have converging views here, though I might put it more cautiously: I would say that efforts to paint either side of the debate as per se willfully perverse are unhelpful, though I do think there are willfully perverse people on both sides. I wouldn't want to take a stab at percentages.
FWIW, it seems to me that Matthew Siekierski's comment and Jimmy's central assertion that "the man-made global warming claim is based on junk science" differ less in substance than in tone and emphasis. Beyond that, I'll let Jimmy speak for himself.

In the angry comment I never posted last night, I was going to make some of the same points as Matthew Siekierski did, above. I do computer modeling of acoustic/fluid phenomena and no one uses code for realistic work that hasn't met strict ANSI, ASME, or some other regulatory agency criteria. In graduate school, one sometimes writes homebrew code, but in industry, one has to meet legal guidelines.
Unfortunately, the sort of fluid mechanics and heat transfer equations used to model atmospheric processes are among the most difficult to model because they are usually slow flow, medium Reynold's number problems (just below turbulence) with poorly defined end conditions. Just defining the motion of water in a lake bed can be tricky, at times.
One often has to resort to approximations or change the cell size to avoid having to deal with small perturbations. This increases the error and can overlook nonlinear processes. One is, in effect, linearizing the data. This can give rise to artifacts that may seem plausible, such as linear trends. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove this in the code, itself. One has to actually build scalable models. I know of no such models that have been built to calibrate the computer code (not that I keep up in the field, so if anyone knows of any, it would be nice to know).
Most people who do theoretical or computational work know about these things, so it would be interesting to find where they took these things into account in the code.
Now, before anyone starts talking about "tricks" that one can play on the computer to make data say anything, one must realize that time series analysis is not a science, it is an art. One is expected to have to use some sort of approximations and even guesses. I don't really fault the scientists for that. I fault them for lousy documentation of what they did.
What should be done, of course, (this is so obvious it is pathetic - thing cold fusion) is to release all of the data and let independent scientists try to replicate the data. That this was NOT done from the start, to my mind, makes all of the results suspicious.
The Chicken

Below is an excerpt from the website I linked above about the quality of the data being gathered to determine "Global Warming alias Climate Change."
Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?
By Anthony Watts
SurfaceStations.org
I'm inclined to accept Barr's assessment that AGW skepticism is minimally within the realm of reasonable scientific opinion
Honestly I don't know, but I'm inclined to agree.
and that efforts to marginalize skepticism as a radical-fringe or willfully-perverse phenomenon akin to Holocaust denial or flat-earthism represent an overweening political gambit rather than the mere assertion of good science over bad.
Sure, but it goes both ways: some conservative skeptics of AGW paint the issue as a massive political conspiracy. I am inclined to believe that most policy makers and most scientists -- even climate scientists -- are mainly good people trying to do mainly good work.
I think my issue with the original blog post was more about its unbalanced (I would even say extreme) tone. The set of links provided as "additional reading" only added to that tone. I mean, imagine someone writing a blog post about finally uncovering some alleged Vatican conspiracy and then linking to wikipedia & the Telegraph for support!
Matthew Siekierski's comment struck me as more reasonable:
I don't believe that the revelations contained in the disclosed material proves that AGW doesn't exist, but it certainly calls into question the validity of the numbers being touted by people at CRU and anywhere that uses CRU-based data.
That's something I can wholeheartedly agree with.
I don't mean to be rude here. It just sometimes strikes me that there are two Jimmy's -- the reasoned, logical, cautious apologist, and Political Jimmy.
Cheers,
Smoky

First Thoughts blog: Physicist Stephen Barr defends AGW skeptics against the charge of being "deniers."
Among other things, he writes:
"…there are very well-known, highly respected and accomplished scientists, knowledgeable in the relevant fields, who are openly skeptical about various aspects the 'consensus view' on global warming. Just to mention two: Prof. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT, one of the world’s leading climatologists, and Prof. Will Happer of Princeton University, who was for several years the director of energy research at the United States Department of Energy (one of the main funders of scientific research in this country). Nor are Lindzen and Happer alone. Scientists who share their views may be in the minority, but it is hardly an insignificant minority."

I'm inclined to accept Barr's assessment that AGW skepticism is minimally within the realm of reasonable scientific opinion, and that efforts to marginalize skepticism as a radical-fringe or willfully-perverse phenomenon akin to Holocaust denial or flat-earthism represent an overweening political gambit rather than the mere assertion of good science over bad.
Smoky, do you disagree? Just curious.

From what I've read in the documents, and commentary on what others have found, I've reached my own conclusions.
1. This information was not "hacked" from the CRU. It was either accidentally made available or leaked. The odds of someone hacking into the CRU system and stumbling across an incriminating FOI folder is much lower (in my mind) than human carelessness with regards to file security (e.g., someone put the zip file on a public server).
2. Looking at the comments in the code, I question the validity of how they merged differing data sets. Making up site numbers? The lack of raw data to recreate things is also troubling.
3. I am very disgusted by the corruption of the peer-review process. I don't know how that would be prevented, however.
4. Allegedly "independent" proof isn't necessarily completely independent. It's possible that methodology was justified for use at another location because CRU used it. It's also possible that, just as there was a "fudge factor" in the CRU code, other places used their own fudge factors to bring their data in line with the CRU data.
5. Software quality is questionable, at best. I've been coding for 15+ years, and any software I worked on went through tons of tests with data meant to try and find coding flaws. The normalization processes used in some of the code I saw would hide problems like this, which means the code could be taking perfectly valid data and putting out junk (like a negative value in a sum-of-squares collector).
Due to all of the above, I have strong doubts about the validity of the data that has been presented by all climate scientists. I just don't know what to believe...were they using CRU datasets in their research?
I don't believe that the revelations contained in the disclosed material proves that AGW doesn't exist, but it certainly calls into question the validity of the numbers being touted by people at CRU and anywhere that uses CRU-based data.
My solution, oddly enough, is not to defund climate researchers, but to continue to fund them, while at the same time funding independent auditors...to put a check on the research processes. And the software should be completely redone by a separate group, with quality audits throughout. Until the research can pass such an audit, any policy decisions meant to reverse AGW must be either put on hold or of minimal impact.
While CRU doesn't have the raw data from each station that originally provided data to them for their datasets, each station/provider of data should still have it. It should be possible, albeit possibly expensive, to regather most of the original raw data...without the uncertainty of where the data is from, or putting in fudge factors, or any of the other programming "tricks" that were used to combine the messed up data.
We shouldn't assume that we have no impact on global temperature, but we have every right to question what we've been told so far. So the scientists should step back, regroup, and redo some early work. Unfortunately for them, the lost data needs to be recovered and the data and processes need to be independently verifiable. Otherwise, it's no longer "science" it's "trust us, we had the data but we lost it".

Lucien,
Gary ditched the comb-over. I think he might have hair plugs or implants--he's not bald, but has a short haircut these days.
I looked over News9's (Oklahoma) website, but couldn't find any of his on-air graphics that he uses for global warming, but there is a section dedicated to the "myths of climate change" on the bottom of the weather page. It could be there.

":) I've not gone anywhere. I've merely been silent."

Your voice has been missed. It's the only way we know you're there.

"Subdue? That has a strange ring to my ears. I've heard that Christians ought to be stewards of creation -- which suggests to me a responsibility to not only use creation but importantly to guard it and protect it for future generations. But subdue?"

In Genesis 1 God tells man (mankind) to "subdue the earth and have dominion over it." The Church's understanding of this "dominion" is consistent with the points you make about stewardship and responsibility:

2415 Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
Hope that helps.

Dear Smoky Mountain,
Subdue? That has a strange ring to my ears. I've heard that Christians ought to be stewards of creation -- which suggests to me a responsibility to not only use creation but importantly to guard it and protect it for future generations. But subdue?
Straight out of the KJV of Genesis (Gen 1: 27- 28):
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth..
Not to change the subject, radically, but in case anyone is interested, tonight is the last episode of Monk. Monk has been poisoned and has to solve Trudy's murder before he dies.
The Chicken

It looks to me as if you may have chosen the LAST definitions provided in your source(s) both for your word and for mine (conspiracy and ordinary, respectively), for maximum perverse effect.

Know yourself.

Smoky! Good to hear from you. You've been missed.
:) I've not gone anywhere. I've merely been silent.
TMC wrote:
Since Christians have a responsibility to subdue the earth
Subdue? That has a strange ring to my ears. I've heard that Christians ought to be stewards of creation -- which suggests to me a responsibility to not only use creation but importantly to guard it and protect it for future generations. But subdue?

Smoky! Good to hear from you. You've been missed.
P.S. Terry: It looks to me as if you may have chosen the LAST definitions provided in your source(s) both for your word and for mine (conspiracy and ordinary, respectively), for maximum perverse effect. Try any of the preceding definitions, and I expect all manner of thing will be well.

There is a connection of climatology with apologetics, albeit obscure. Since Christians have a responsibility to subdue the earth, how this should be done is a matter of discussion. Since the people calling the shots are not taking moral theology into consideration, such things have to be discussed somewhere. Why not, here?
The Chicken

I want to just follow-up to my post briefly.
I've followed this blog long enough to know that occasionally people write things like "Dude, Jimmy, stick to apologetics", and occasionally Jimmy (or if not Jimmy then certainly Tim J or bill912) will respond "Dude, this is my blog and I can write whatever I want".
Certainly that's true, but this blog is very public, and when you express rather strong opinions on politics and so forth, which have very little to do with (what I thought was) the primary subject matter of this blog, you risk turning off a certain portion of your potential readership.
I suspect that the "certain portion" is large, but that's debatable.
If that's ok with you, so be it. Just my 2 cents.

Does Terry believe Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to be truthful? I mean, given that it needed corrective notes in the U.K.

David, if you mean to ask if "mainstream" science has considered it to be an absolutely flawless presentation, no. On the other hand, the same UK judge whose opinion Monckton presented in his talk as seemingly worthy of respect and which you seem to reflect in your mention, concluded: "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'" Needless to say, Monckton omitted that detail (or "inconvenient truth" if you will) from his talk.
Terry: In ordinary English, we sometimes use the verb form "conspire" to refer to chance circumstance (e.g., "events conspired"). I think most English speakers would find similar use of the noun form "conspiracy" extremely odd to say the least. It it a terrible definition.

SDG, "ordinary" English is, to borrow a definition from ordinary English, "of no special quality or interest; commonplace; unexceptional," perhaps even "somewhat inferior or below average". Nevertheless, "most English speakers would find", if they opened up ordinary dictionaries of ordinary English for centuries past and present, the very sense of the word as I've described. Of course, the truth can often appear "extremely odd", even "terrible", to many, perhaps most people. I rather like "awful" (as in filled with awe), or "great" or "extremely formidable". If you like "terrible", that's wonderful too! It's so "bad"!

A leading link to wikipedia of all places, three links to some site named "chicagoboyz.net" (whose tag line under a google search reads "Commentary from a group of University of Chicago alumni students and their friends."), two links to a MSM british newspaper (whose reporting on religious matters is almost universally derided here -- apparently it's accurate enough on matters of science?)...
I mean, really?
I honestly don't know much about climate science -- I have no strong opinion on the matter and withhold my judgement pending better education -- but the obvious uneven blogging about matters political and scientific on this site turn me off to considering the validity of meatier subjects discussed here such as apologetics.

Terry: In ordinary English, we sometimes use the verb form "conspire" to refer to chance circumstance (e.g., "events conspired"). I think most English speakers would find similar use of the noun form "conspiracy" extremely odd to say the least. It it a terrible definition.
I am not aware of any reason why you should be having any more difficulty posting any comment in any combox than anyone else is having. Cheers.

I mean, given that it needed corrective notes in the U.K.

Does Terry believe Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to be truthful?

www.surfacestations.com has some very interesting information about the quality of the climate stations that gather weather data.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Is Gary still sporting his really bad comb-over? Do you have any links to the fella's stuck in the ice?