True. The “he said” part is about 99% of the world’s best scientists and leading scientific organizations backing their conclusions up with over 20 years of hard data that have been published in thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. That scientifc evidence is now starting to be joined by a truckload of anecdotal evidence in the form of people losing their water sources to glacier melt, homes to permafrost melt, species disappearing due to rapid warming, and increased sea level rise.

On the other side are the “she said”s, who are stomping around the room with their arms folded whining “but fixing this is going to cost us a lot fo money!!!!! Therefore, I don’t think it’s real.”

A classic “he said, she said”…..*rolleyes*

StevoR: I guess you didn’t actually read the linked article about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Sarcasm and name-calling rather than an actual serious conter-argument. What a surprise.

Guess that makes you a typical AGW Alarmist then!

@ 39. Arrow Says:

If you alter historical records you can make any year warmest or coldest on record.

After the climate gate fiasco which proved most prominent climate scientists in the field would rather commit crime then release their data subjected to FOI I have completely lost trust in what they have to say.

Me too.

I thought we could trust the Climatologists before but now their credibility is at about the same level as used car salesmen and politicians – or lower.

If we can’t take all our own data – and we can’t trust theirs… then how can we know what the climate is really doing? (Other than thefact we know its not doing what the CRU wanted it to do or they wouldn’t have had to tamper with their info.) We’re in a pickle.

The CRU fraudsters have set science back a lot further than they realise & we absolutely need a full Congressional inquiry. We need the facts and the other side to get a proper chance to cross examine them. Those like Phil Jones and Mike Mann and Kevin Trenberth who it appears have committed outrageous acts of scientific malpractice and fraud need to be held accountable for their actions. If that means them serving jail time then so be it. The people need to know the truth and make decisions based on factual data not fraudulent manipulated muck. The only way climatologogists will ever be trusted again is if the whole scientific community admits its wrong doing, punishes and forever bars the offenders and puts asystem of real checks and safeguards against similar fraud ever happening again.

@ 40. badnicolez Says:

Since I am not a scientist (just very curious), can one of you who is a scientist explain why a runaway greenhouse effect didn’t happen long ago when we know (from cores) that the planet was much warmer with significantly higher CO2 concentrations than there are today, but the AGW proponents fully expect us to become Venus-ized at much lower temps and CO2 concentrations in the (near) future?

Not a scientist so I can’t answer. Sounds like a good point & one I’d like to see answered as well.

Since climate scientists have “corrected” instrumental records, deleted original data to make comparisons impossible and did not make the corrections and rationale behind them openly available we have no way of checking if there is any truth to what they say.

After the climate gate fiasco which proved most prominent climate scientists in the field would rather commit crime then release their data subjected to FOI I have completely lost trust in what they have to say.

Unfortunately all the bizarre actions of CRU climate scientists can only be explained if one accepts they are guilty of tweaking the data to make it fit their preconceived beliefs.

The fact that there are numerous examples of such raw data “corrections” in where the past temperatures have been hugely corrected downward and modern temperatures upward only adds to the suspicion.

So, yes, even though I considered Inhofe a crackpot before I am now forced to agree with him that such proclamations concerning warmest and coldest years cannot be trusted.

Since we are to spend billions of dollars on fighting climate change, I believe it makes sense to use a tiny portion of that money to fund a public climate data registry filled with people who have no direct stake in the climate predictions and give them the task of reassembling the *RAW* climate data from meteorological stations around the globe, paying them enough to make that data freely available for everyone. This should be the data before ANY corrections are taken into account, a proper documentation for the purpose of making such corrections where needed also has to be assembled.

Only when such RAW data will be available it will be possible to verify whether the infamous “value added data” is actually sound or a scientific fraud.

Such a repository will also be needed for assessing any effects our measures have on climate, unfortunately most climatologists have a clear conflict of interest and as the climategate shows cannot be trusted.