[ImanCarrot]

I think it riles most folk because it's such a blatant lie.

We're paying these folk via our taxes to lie to us and we have no option to say "funding not approved".

Couple that with the fact that this is a CNC forum and most folk that are into CNC deal in measurable things so (for example) seeing a temperature measuring station placed next to a factory heat exchanger output won't go missed. There's a piccy on this site somewhere of that one.

[fizzissist]

When the AGW crowd began to demand we all bow down to a so-called scientific "consensus", the religious fervor was revealed. Consensus is not a word that belongs in science..it belongs in politics and religion. Paradoxically, the word skeptic is the core value that drives good science. Denier is an ad hominem attack. You'll notice that religious fervor is exactly what the AGW camp is trying to generate, evidenced by their own pronouncements.

But let's be fair here, and show an example of both sides of a very critical issue, that of Michael Mann's work. Read both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

From Michael Mann's own camp:

RealClimate: Cuccinelli goes fishing again

From the people who claim that Mann's Hockey Stick was basically a "garbage in/hockey stick out" program:

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

(I admit to being fairly biased towards the findings of McIntyre, btw)

[TomB]

There are a lot of reasons the deniers and skeptics turn to. Some feel it is ’power grab,’ some ‘follow the money’, some worry about ‘black UN helicopters’ and some don’t see the consistency or validity of the science. I only want to comment on the last reason. When I look at the publicly proclaimed science I see several possible tests. (1) Since the models used do extrapolation then the historic line that they are extrapolating must match what we know to be historically true. (2) The event that the models predict must justify the alarm claimed by the proponent. (3) The modeling and experiments related to the theory must be independently verified.

Global warming fails all three tests. (1) The data that has been used to drive the predictions does not include the temperature dip for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. (2) The advocates' historic temperature data was derived from the proxy, ‘tree ring spacing’, and is therefore limited to about 1000 years of history. There are other proxies, for example ice cores. They show a 5000 year temperature history and in that 5000 years there are 3 other warm periods that each lasted about 150 years, started abruptly like the current one and each ended abruptly. They are spaced about 1000 years apart and this one is about on schedule. With that perspective it’s hard to see why this one is unique or should be alarming. (3) As the scandals of last year illustrate, data and models are not ever openly shared so there can be no independent verification.

[jhowelb]

There are a lot of reasons...snip... I only want to comment on the last reason. ............snip.....

News flash!

Computer models are not science.

Tree rings and ice cores are fossils, and like dinosaur bones lead to conjecture. Like "what color were their eyes?" and "what did they sound like?".

Contemporary data have been corrupted.

All this leaves only one conclusion.....HOAX!!!