Hmm? Hmm? FAIL

As I stated in my post, the UK Telegraph, definitely a left of center publication which has supported AGW, has been highly active in reporting the crumbling of the AGW argument. There are others as well.

As to your comment about crackpots and anti intellectuals, you can’t be reading beyond the shrill headlines in the science challenged US press and still hold this opinion. There are many credible scientists who dispute the IPCC’s findings. There are also many published peer reviewed papers, in spite of the best efforts by Mann and company, which take the contrary view. Each week we have been treated to yet another piece of evidence that has proven either false or manufactured.

There are many out here who do not rely on the headlines, but actually try to read the research behind the headlines. While there is ample evidence that the climate has and is changing, as it always does and always will, there is no solid research that supports the notion that human’s paltry CO2 contributions are causing it.

If you wanted to make a better argument, perhaps you should’ve quoted sources you think have an ideological bias against reporting such stuff.

As to your claims about cherry picking and the hoax-like nature of climate science: I refer you to Carl Sagan – “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

The entire edifice of climate science would have to come tumbling down to validate your claims. To expect as much is irrational.

No thinking person will completely dismiss the mounds of evidence showing climate change just because a couple of anti-intellectual crack-pots and a tabloid with a known conservative agenda want them to and can find a few squirrels who happen to be scientists.

Show me some extraordinary evidence to back up you claims. Don’t give me a line a bull with an obvious ideological slant, supported with citations from a conservative tabloid and expect me to all of a sudden to “see the light.”

I don’t sell Amway, so I’m not subject to conspiracies nor false beliefs.

The UK press has also been active in reporting the extreme cherry picking of temperature sites in Russia, China and Canada which skewed temperatures reported in the studies.

I never took you for the sort who’d resort to quoting a tabloid just to make a point so off base that it’s laughable.

“You are inconsistent here. Either he’s a wrong or he’s not.”

No, he wasn’t wrong before, he was lying. Now, with the European press putting this story on the front pages, he’s starting to come clean.

Let’s see what else the fearmongers have been up to:

Climate change causes more fog in San Francisco… no wait, less fog… no wait…

IPCC withdraw journal claim about rising sea levels

NOAA and NASA complicit in data manipulation

Yep, nothing to see here. Move along as the climate-alarmists keep pushing the biggest scam in history. Pay no attention this week as the Senate tries to pass the largest tax increase in history, all in the name of saving a planet that doesn’t need saving.

I’m not sure what you should be more angry about. That they lied to you so easily, or that you allowed yourself to be so easily lied to.

He has admitted that out of four periods spanning over 140 years that there is little statistical difference in the warming trends. This would indicate that there is no dramatic spike in temperatures in the late 20th Century. Without such a dramatic spike the case for a warming driven by man’s CO2 output lacks foundation. Further, Dr. Jones dodges the question of the Medieval Warm Period. He states that IF the MWP is as warm or warmer than the late 20th century then the latest warming would NOT be unusual. Since Dr. Jones is no minor player in the AGW controversy and he is in close concert with Michael Mann, he is most certainly aware that Mann’s assertions regarding the MWP are in high contention. All historical and geological records prior to Mann’s dendrological studies pointed to a long (500 yrs) MWP that was as warm as or warmer than that of the late 20th Century. Without the dramatic warming trend and with a prior pre human emissions warming period of equal or greater intensity as the recent one the case for a human CO2 driven warming falls apart. These are things which other credible scientists have been asserting for years only to be met with aggressive ad hominem attacks by Jones and company.

The scientist you refer to is dishonest and lying, but only when he says there’s global warming, BUT when he says it’s not happening (as you allege, incorrectly I might add) he’s to be believed?

You are inconsistent here. Either he’s a wrong or he’s not. He can’t be both and only to be believed when he supports what you wish to be true.

I detect an agenda at work in your logic (or lack thereof..)

If it were, everyone in Washington DC would be dead.