So it really is no big deal how the lies were put together to fraudulently sell the whole world this load of crap science?
Willis Eschenbach at Anthony Watts site has a detailed write up dissecting how the climategate fraud was accomplished. If you are at all interested in the AGW Fraud, you should carefully read the whole thing.
Everyone should spend a little time watching the Gore interview. And then read the
Eschenbach article that you linked to. The contrast between "Gore Science" and Eschenbach science is simply stunning. Here is an excerpt of that article that will give everyone who hasn't read it a little taste. And I think that Figure 8 is going to start showing up on T-shirts very soon. It is a classic.
*** From the Watts Up With That Blog
Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.
Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero.
Great link. Thank you. There should be 10,000 scientists doing this straight forward analysis in every corner of the globe - that’s how you get to “consensus”. You publish all of the findings and if you make adjustments, you have to “prove” the adjustment is correct, otherwise the raw numbers are used. This may not be the smoking gun, but it’s definitely enough evidence to require a completely public review of the entire dataset.
The only reason the data and the adjustments are kept secret is to hide something. Without transparency, it’s opinion, not science.
BTW, if the planet truly is warming and we are causing something that could eventually destroy my children’s children’s future, I want to know about it. I want to know and I would stand up for measures to fix it - but you’ve been caught fudging the facts, so now we want to see it all or you get no mo’ money!