Phil: “Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.”

I agree with that statement, but then Phil had to qualify it:

Phil: “…no, Climategate and its sequel don’t count..”

When Climategate exposed their own emails, those documents demonstrated exactly that type of activity among the scientists involved…

This is a lie.
Put up or shut up. You have read the emails, right?
So…where’s the results? What work was tampered with? Name it. Be as specific as you like.
(…crickets chirping…)
What peer-reveiwed paper was denounced as an actual fraud? Name it. Be as specific as you like.
(…crickets chirping…)
Climategate was a sham from start to finish.
It was all innuendo, vague handwaving and quotemining.
Shame on you for promoting a deceptive smear and shame on you for ignoring the multiple, independent investigations done by the grown-ups.

Climate deniers: Making 9/11 Troofers looking smart by comparison.

Unwinding “Hide the Decline”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

It will take me some time to do the research, but step by step, I will prove that everything on that poster (at the top of this topic) was false.

What, and you think $2.7 billion is anything but small change beside the combined profits of the largest industry in the world?

The graphic makes no factual claims – it proposes two scenarios and asks which is more credible. Or did you not read the actual graphic?

By definition, if the Global Historical Climate Netwark databases have not been altered, then the values obtained by each individual station will exactly match between each version.

What, you think they should not correct errors when errors are found?

And that is what got me so upset. Most of the people involved are retired meteorologist that are doing this research on their own, without any money in return.

This is an out-and-out lie.

Most of the anti-AGW “talking points” come not from retired meteorologists, but from conservative think-tanks and politicians, many of whom are in the pockets of the fossil-fuel and energy industries.

If I felt you were worth the effort, I’d look it all up and do the research, but since you repeatedly refuse to back up your claims with anything remotely resembling evidence, I simply cannot be bothered. You are not worth that much of my time.

I do not know Phil’s personal email,

How hard did you look?

In the sidebar, under “About BadAstronomy”, it says:

Contact me: The Bad Astronomer “at” gmail “dot” com

If anyone’s still reading at this late stage in the thread?

You should know me by now!

Plus as I think has been noted before already any climatologist who can convincingly show that HIRGO is wrong would likely win a Nobel prize as well as major fame and fortune if they could actually make an evidence based scientifically overwhelming case.

@158. James Evans wrote :

@Messier Tidy Upper: “Second Civil War? Hmm .. Far as I can recall US history which as an Aussie isn’t something I studied at school, there was only one US Civil War – unless you count the War of Independence or the Indian Wars which don’t quite fit that description do they?” – MTU
Correct. We’ve only had one civil war in the States.
“So we’re talking about a threatened repeat of the “War of Northern Treachery / Southern Succession” then? “- MTU
Yes. Keep in mind that terms like “War of Northern Aggression” and “War of Southern Independence” were only used by Confederates/Southerners who wanted to keep their slaves and paint the abolitionist North in a bad light, and, today, are used here and there by a select few diehard Confederate sympathizers. Yes, these people are still out there, and it wouldn’t surprise me if, like fundamentalist religious types yearning for the Rapture/Apocalypse/Armageddon/Eschaton/etc., they are the ones stirring up the threat of “CW2.”

Thanks for that elaboration and, yeah, fair point on the “War of Northern Aggression” thing I jokingly half recalled.

@ Lab Rat Jason & anyone else still interested in possible solutions – the latest issue of New Scientist magazine (22nd September 2012) has a cover story on geoengineering – “plans to cool the planet” (pages 30-35 by Stephen Battersby) – which may be interesting and worth reading.

If anyone’s still reading at this late stage in the thread?

This completely omits the single biggest funding contributor: the federal government. Guess what they fund?

Energy industry subsidies.

And to a greater degree than the other recipients you bring up, as has been mentioned several times in this thread.

Waving a hand and declaring that the omitted funding doesn’t count because it went to science as opposed to propaganda is cute, but disingenuous.

Ignoring the billions given to fossil fuel companies, while fixating on institutions that receive less handouts from taxpayers but rub you the wrong way politically is, at this point in the discussion, cute, disingenuous, and tiresome.

Lee, you need to pay more attention to previous comments. Your points have been addressed ad nauseum.

Waving a hand and declaring that the omitted funding doesn’t count because it went to science as opposed to propaganda is cute, but disingenuous.