It is important to get the public to understand that this type of conservative will tell any lie it can to get their way and act shocked when they are called out as the liars they are.

Where I live it's colder now than it was last year. Explain that, liberal climatistas.

No excuses for ignorance

David Archer's videos of every lecture from his Global Warming class at the Uni. of Chicago...

Citing e-mails that critics say cast doubt on global warming, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration Wednesday to suspend efforts to combat climate change until the controversy is resolved.

They would have us believe that they trusted the scientific consensus before these emails were released.

"Where I live it's colder now than it was last year. Explain that, liberal climatistas."

My first thought would be that you've probably run out of witches to burn.

Of course the e-mails do not cast doubt on the scientific concensus, but flat-earthers, er, anthropogenic climate change denialists won't let mere facts get in the way of their commitment to making Earth uninhabitable for humans.

I've simply given up long since. We're fucked- nothing meaningful is going to be done to prevent climate disaster. Future generations of a diminished, impoverished human population will curse us. As a species we are just smart enough to get ourselves in deep trouble, but not smart enough to get out of it.

Al said:
said:
Where I live it's colder now than it was last year. Explain that, liberal climatistas.

'Way back ('way, 'waaaay back) in seventh grade earth science class we learned the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

Are Republicans as smart as seventh graders?

I would love the Reponse letter from the EPA to be:

No.

Sincerely,
blahblahblah.

Just stop paying attention to these assholes and get it done.

Republicans don't care about the country, the planet, the future, the present, Republicans don't care about anything but WINNING.

Dear Republicans,

The e-mail controversy has been resolved. We are moving forward with Kerry-Boxer and Copenhagen.

Yours,
Americans For Less Insanity.

While I assume at this point that most of the top conservatives simply know they're lying (though possibly simply in denial about the seriousness of the consequences), what makes me shake my head is the willingness of their followers to say "there is doubt" and embrace the idea that we should do nothing until we're absolutely certain that global warming is happening. Because, y'know, it will cost money.

I presume that none of them will buy fire insurance until they're absolutely certain their house is going to burn down.

Apropos of the Andrew Leonard excerpt in the post below, in which he wishes for an alternative universe in which the GOP could destroy the economy and only affect themselves, I often wish we could confine warming to a small section of the planet and send deniers to live there.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.). . . . It's time to take back the notion that the 'science is settled.' "

Yes, yes. Let's, just like 10 months of meaningful healthcare reform discussion to help millions of people, hit the reset button on the past 40 years of science too.

James, you have No-Sense in that Brenner.

I often wish we could confine warming to a small section of the planet and send deniers to live there.

Perhaps we could arrange an exchange program with Bangladesh? They already believe we're planning to put them in camps anyway...

These are people who never met an anti-pollution bill that they didn't hate. Just let big corporate industries voluntarily clean up their own waste because that *always* works. A completely unregulated "free market" is a magical cure-all.

Clean air? Clean water? A planet that can sustain life? Who needs it? Jesus is coming soon enough and the Bible says we can do whatever we want to the planet, no strings attached.

So, if there's a "one percent chance" that leaving Saddam Hussein in power will lead to a mushroom cloud over New York City it is our nation's solemn duty to throw its military and economy into the toilet without the slightest piece of tangible evidence and without questioning the wisdom of our leaders.

But, if there's scientific evidence that greenhouse gases might be altering the earth's climate in dangerous ways and that air pollution in general is, without question, causing serious health issues around the world, it is our solemn duty to find alternate evidence that keeps us from doing anything about it.

Republicans are pig-fuckers. One way or another they will be the death of us all.

Now I understand the republican strategy: just wear us down with a deluge of moronic babbling until we give up. God, how I thoroughly hate these vile, stupid, ignorant, worthless people. Shit for brains, that's it, they have to stop calling themselves the GOP, and start labeling themselves the SFB party.

Al, of course I can explain it to you, but you won't listen. Climate is not the same thing as weather. One colder winter in one part of the world proves absolutely nothing. Worldwide changes in average temperatures, over fairly long periods of time, are what reveal changes in climate. And those temperature include ocean water temperatures as well as ambient air.

Ask any ski-resort manager whether he thinks global warming is real, and whether he thinks we can afford to ignore it. Wear asbestos ear plugs if you try to tell him your opinion on the matter

Al [who I know is fake]: I'm wearing shorts in Virginia. In December.

I blame you.

the lawmakers requested that a pending move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act be halted, along with plans to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources

To summarize from Steve's last few posts, the Republicans are against a healthy citizenry, against a healthy economy, against clean air, against clean water, and for rape.

I wonder why they are out of power?

My parsley is growing just fine. In New Jersey. In December.

Steve, I wish people would mention that these e-mails were stolen, a crime! They were stolen so the perpetrators of this crime could libel the scientists. Another crime! The deniers have entered into a criminal conspiracy to keep profits for a few while causing suffering of all of humanity.

It was 53 in New Hampshire this am and 35 in Houston! Explain that Al! By your logic that is proof of global warming!

You can't refute a theology. The free market is their god, and they gladly will sacrifice their own children to it, with a song in their hearts, as if it were Moloch.

It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't going to take the rest of us down with them.

BTW that was sarcasm !

To Al: Back to school, Al, possibly to learn something you never understood the first time.

Willfully ignorant: A bigger fairy tale

chrenson:

So, if there's a "one percent chance" that leaving Saddam Hussein in power will lead to a mushroom cloud over New York City it is our nation's solemn duty to throw its military and economy into the toilet without the slightest piece of tangible evidence and without questioning the wisdom of our leaders.

chrenson, it's a nice argument. But one that sits in a bigger argument of the same sort. Namely, that most climate-creationists forever demand more proof for global warming, yet willfully accept on faith that words written by humans 2000 years ago the actual spoken wisdom of a God.

They demand more rigorous data for science, and no data for their belief in god and his supposed holy words.

You can't win an argument with such people.
They can't be budged or nudged.
You might as well command stones to sing "Happy Birthday."

If anyone can think of a better example of a humanity as a failed species please share....

Valiant effort, Steve. An unfortunate prediction though: Later today, once they have located your post, the deniers will be out in force on this site and swamp it with all the proofs they have marshalled through the intentional misinterpretation of whatever information was contained in the hacked CRU emails. No alternative explanation will matter.

All of these deniers will be experts on climate science. Many of them will claim a global conspiracy at work. And none of them will bother to explain how that conspiracy has managed to obtain the cooperation of the unabatedly melting ice sheets and glaciers.

Denying AGW has assumed the character of a crusade and crusades are all about fervor, not being rational.

You're right - you might as well sing happy birthday, because none of you climate Einsteins have an answer about why the planet hasn't warmed for the past 10 years.

Making fun of Republicans doesn't really do anything to make your case. It only makes you look like the deniers.

To koreyel: I prefer to regard these brayings as living proof that Darwin was right: we are descended from monkeys. Just look at the republican right wing. Except, we should be more rigorous in our analysis and say that there were at least three branches of our monkey predecessors: the monkeys themselves (who show considerably more intelligence than your average republican) came from one branch, normal human beings (ie, those who are not sociopaths) came from a second, and the republicans and born again enthusiasts for endless wars against the unworthy masses, well ...

To AngelaTC: Sorry Angela, but you are absolutely flat out wrong. Where the hell do you get your information, Rush Limbaugh ?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

By way of RealClimate.org, where the actual scientists involved have been addressing the CRU hack very forthrightly from day one...which you won't hear about in the conservosphere. Several of the scientists at the heart of the non-controversy have been publicly addressing the denialists over there, and it's worth a read if you have more than a fleeting interest in the biggest public health crisis in human history.

I have never listened to Limbaugh. In fact, until Obama was elected, I didn't even know he was still on the air.

Why do you have to attack me for asking a question?

I got my information from the UK's Guardian, among other places.

Why can't you just fill in the blanks? Give me something like " I know that's a popular talking point, but that is a misinterpretation of (insert study here.) That's been rejected because...(insert logic here.)

I'm not a scientist, and I think this battle is already lost regardless. The GOP lost the election. Just watching how asking questions makes you guys explode doesn't help change my mind, I can assure you of that.

I encourage anyone interested in this tempest in a continually warming teapot to read this Slate Explainer from yesterday.

Note that the data set in question is the one most favorable to the deniers, the one they had pointed to in their arguments until they decided there were more political points in attacking it as corrupt. The other communly used data sets that are not tainted in any way by this scandal show worse climate change.

This is the same bullshit that Creationism is based on. "Sure, scientists have X worked out to ten decimal places - but what about the 11th??? If you don't have that, then all of science is invalid!"

Seriously. Global climate change deniers who can credibly explain things like regression analysis confidence intervals are rarer than hens' teeth.

Professor Mojib Latif - he isn't a skeptic, but he spoke before the IN and said the planet has cooled over the past 10 years, and that the UN model couldn't explain it.

It didn't change his mind about global warming, but it shows me that something, somewhere, is wrong with the science.

Attacking critics and shredding data doesn't help make the case.

You guys are amazing. You've managed to address foreign policy, religion and use a big phrase that describes statistical analysis in general (not specific to this issue).

Al, where I live it is a heck of a lot hotter than it was last year and there was a lot less rain. We went from March to October with only two rain storms and daily temperatures over 95 F. Explain that deniers.

"until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised."

That the science has not been compromised has already been demonstrated numerous times. That you are not channeling EXXON talking points needs to be demonstrated before you are allowed to open your mouth again.

As for those "nasty" scientists who wanted to challenge an article they didn't agree with, have you ever read the particular review article in question? It was total baloney with a faulty peer review process and cherry picking and distortion of findings of the articles that it did cite. Why should any responsible scientist allow that to go unchallenged? How can anyone with a modicum of decency complain about such a challenge?

@AngelaTC

"Why do you have to attack me for asking a question?"

You didn't ask a question. You made an accusation:

"None of you climate Einsteins have an answer about why the planet hasn't warmed for the past 10 years."

Apparently civility is only something other people have to worry about, huh?

Angela, you may want to catch up a bit - clearly you've been mislead by sources you chose as to what Latif said and what his study actually means (it appears you haven't read the study itself, just the climate deniers spin on it).

Should you really care in good faith to get up to date, I recommend this explanation.

Latif's abstract of his study summarizes it this way:

Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

Note: (1) "may not" increase - not that it wont; (2) natural variations - i.e. this is never a straight line - will temporarily offset; (3) he clearly believes in anthropogenic warming.

Nothing in Latif supports the hypothesis of your posts, that there is a flaw in climate change data that is being ignored. All Latif says is that some buffering of man-made warming will occur from other cyclical sources meaning that there may be short-term dips in the otherwise upward-bound trend line of global temperatures. This is hardly comforting.

The emails don't undermine the idea that the earth is warming or that humans have influenced this to some degree, but they very much undermine the notion that the warming is unprecendented (a la hockey stick) and therefore that there is a crisis in the offing.

"none of you climate Einsteins have an answer about why the planet hasn't warmed for the past 10 years."

But it has. And claiming that it hasn't is just part of the Big Lie practiced by the right wing. As has been mentioned ad nauseum the last 10 years are the warmest decade on record. The only way that you can claim that it hasn't warmed is if you pick 1998 as your base point. Pick any other year or any longer time period and the warming trend continues, not just unabated, but accelerating. When you draw a line showing annual temperatures since records were first kept, you get a curve going up, not a straight line, and since 1998 the annual temperatures have been ABOVE that line which indicates that recent temperatures are hotter than would have been expected if previous trends had continued. Check the graph at realclimate.org

Where I live it's colder now than it was last year.

I believe the topic of the day is global climate change. We'll debate local climate change some other time.

AngelaTC:

Let me see if I get this straight. You say we don't have an explanation for your interpretation of the data, but bringing up statistical analysis has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Are you effing serious?

"Why do you have to attack me for asking a question?"

Because the "question", if that is what it was, is based on a lie. And you assuredly had to be aware that it was based on deceit because no reasonably informed person can be otherwise.

" use a big phrase that describes statistical analysis in general (not specific to this issue)."

But it most assuredly WAS specific to this issue because it describes the temperature curve that you deny is happening. That you don't know what you're talking about is not a defense.

"Attacking critics and shredding data doesn't help make the case."

True enough. Attacking critics and "shredding data (denying inconvenient data)" is all you have done on this message board, or all that any of the deniers have done anywhere, and it certainly doesn't help make your case. For another of a multitude of examples of how you (pl.) twist and distort data (shred data), see the post by zeitgeist above.

The only way that you can claim that it hasn't warmed is if you pick 1998 as your base point.

Otherwise known as cooking your data, cherry-picking, or plain ol' "lying with statistics".

But, if your audience is mathematically illiterate, you can lie to them all you want, and they'll never realize it. The evidence of this is everywhere (and not just on this thread).

To AngelaTC: you didn't ask a question. You asserted something which none of the community of climate scientists believes. So I repeat my question: on whose authority, a newspaper reporter ? On what was the reporter from the Guardian basing the conclusion that the earth hasn't been heating for the past ten years, the thermometer in his/her living room ?

To rbe1: How about Trenberth's quote... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."

And how about this? (Hint: Still cooling)

From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data...

Or this (from September) Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference—an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change—Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”

Where do you people get the idea that there is only 7 years of data ! Average temperature data on land has been available for well over one hundred years in most parts of the world. Climatic variations have been tracked for far longer intervals on land. There is adequate scientific evidence for the average temperature of the oceans for millions of years. This entire discussion is lunacy, just pure bullshit. Look doubters, just go on doubting, may the lord bless you for your revelatory insight into the earth's climate. I'll continue to listen to the scientists, who I doubt would want to be caught dead trying to educate most of you. Have a nice day.

To Marc Blank: to which I reply, so what ? All this means is that climate science cannot explain trends of the space of a few years or decades. Don't you fucking get it ? Climatic variations take place over the course of hundreds to many thousands or millions of years. What has the climate scientists so worked up and nervous is the fact that the earth has heated (measured temperatures, Marc) up a couple of degrees since the industrial revolution, and this is a lot, Marc, a big fucking lot ! If this make no sense to you then we're wasting our time here.

Other ways in which climate change deniers are exactly like creationists are:

(1) Quoting individual scientists, often out of context, where they disagree (or appear to) with other scientists, as though this is "proof" of controversy or conspiracy; and

(2) Repeating the same talking points over and over again, when the refutations are plentiful and easy to find (if they were the least bit interested in honestly learning the truth rather than being argumentative assholes).

You're right - you might as well sing happy birthday, because none of you climate Einsteins have an answer about why the planet hasn't warmed for the past 10 years.

Kenneth Trenberth called it a "travesty" that there was no explanation for the lack of warming over the past 10 years. That's from the purloined emails.

The end of the warming trend was predicted, and there is an explanation, but the explanation contradicts the theory of "anthropogenic" global warming.

Is it surprising that they still do not know who hacked the CRU system? I would have thought that by now they would know. If it was an inside job, then it was done by a "whistleblower" who will be entitled to legal protection rather than prosecution.

Ah yes Matthiew, conspiracy theories are so much more fun than plain old hard work and - perish the thought - thinking things through, aren't they ?

Wow - amazing. You would have thought my post of 12:29 would have come after Marler's post.

Thanks for providing evidence of exactly what I was talking about, Matt!

This whole thing could be larger than people think. Scientific snark and misbehavior go back a long way. Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton both independently discovered differential calculus. After Leibniz’ death in 1716, Newton spent the last 11 years of his life dissing Leibniz in private communications in a most unscientific and uncollegial way. If Sensenbrenner or Inhofe get hold of Newton’s writings, they could declare all of his work to be “unsettled”, which means without Newton’s theory of gravity we could all be thrown off the surface of the planet into space.

rbe1: To Marc Blank: to which I reply, so what ? All this means is that climate science cannot explain trends of the space of a few years or decades. Don't you fucking get it ?

The earth has repeatedly warmed and cooled in the past. No one knows why, though lots of covarying processes have been studied. The earth fairly suddenly stopped warming after 1998, and none of the AGW proponents knows why that happened. The earth does not seem to have cooled, but it is much less warm that forecast. Since their prediction were proved false, and they don't know why (as confessed by Trenberth and others in the emails), there is no good reason to have confidence in their predictions.

Over the past 5 years, the solar theory has gained adherents and the AGW theory has lost adherents. Not big changes in nmbers, but changes. For all the luck we have had forecasting weather and climate, we can not rule out the possibility that in 10 years the solar theory will be the consensus. Not very long ago (in terms of scientific ages) most physicists asserted positively that Wegener had to be wrong about what has come to be called "plate tectonics". It wasn't that they were skeptical, but they asserted positively that a sufficiently powerful energy source did not exist.

Texas Aggie: When you draw a line showing annual temperatures since records were first kept, you get a curve going up, not a straight line, and since 1998 the annual temperatures have been ABOVE that line which indicates that recent temperatures are hotter than would have been expected if previous trends had continued. Check the graph at realclimate.org

It depends on which line you draw, that is, on how you extrapolate from the past to the future. The IPCC predicted that the rise from the late 70s to the late 90s would continue, and it has not continued. That is the "travesty" noted by Trenberth (an AGW proponent), and it is some of the evidence that the models are wrong.

zeitgeist: The other communly used data sets that are not tainted in any way by this scandal show worse climate change.

According to Phil Jones (whose accuracy or honesty might be in question even among AGW proponents) the NASA GISS data are in even worse shape.

To Matt: And the solar theory has gained adherents among which community, exactly, the Arizona sun worshipers ? Jesus, this conversation is like the one Barney Frank was having with the Tea Party folks. What's the use ? To state that no knows why means nothing. I'm not exactly sure why the water in my toilet goes down clockwise sometimes, even though I live in the northern hemisphere, but I'm not ready to suspend my position on Einstein's theory of relativity or Quantum Mechanics, at least not until I watch a few more times. Why don't you take some courses in meteorology and climate science, and put some of your time to use. Bye.

What we need is someone to hack into the emails of these "peer-review" "scientists," and delve into their Mobil Oil and other financial backers and the instructions issued by them to the cabal of anti-scientists. If you want to talk about a conspiracy, there's where you'll find it.

That whole "10 years of cooling" BS -- why do you think they start with 1998? Because starting with 1997 or earlier obviates their position. And the confusion of "weather" (short-term) with "climate" (long-term) shows a lack of understanding on the part of the deniers. But, as someone once wrote, it is hard to get someone to understand when his (perceived) self-interest depends on his NOT understanding.

My right-whinger neighbor once asked me, "If global warming is real, why is this winter so cold?" My answer was, "Anytime you upset a balance, you'll get wider swings in weather patterns," and sure enough, we've not had a snowy winter since then (this was eight or nine years ago -- possibly in 1997, I don't recall). And we're seeing changes in patterns -- hotter springs and falls, not to mention winters, and colder seasons, too, in places where ice-melt is affecting the ocean currents.

My opinion is that the planet is heating, and, even if other factors are the main cause, it is our duty, as "keepers of the garden," to help lessen the impact of the heating. In other words, even if it isn't our fault, it is our job.

Ed

On Monday, a caller on the Dianne Reihme (sp?) Show asserted that ACORN probably had a role in "ClimateGate."

Actually, the Republicans in Congress sound reasonable when compared to the seething mass of anarcho-capitalist libertarians in this country. There are probably tens of millions (if not more) people in this country who really believe that Global Warming is the combined brainchild of liberal Goldman Sachs, ACORN, George Soros and the evil international fascist-socialist climatologist community.

And I fear their numbers are only growing.

rbe1: Ah yes Matthiew, conspiracy theories are so much more fun than plain old hard work and - perish the thought - thinking things through, aren't they ?

I propose no conspiracy theory. It is worth remembering that the same Mann clique that tried to control the publication process also tried to control the grant awards process.

rbe1: And the solar theory has gained adherents among which community, exactly, the Arizona sun worshipers ?

Among scientists who study the evidence.

This is the same crowd of unenlightenment that imprisoned Galileo.

Half a millennium later and nothing has changed.

Jesus, this conversation is like the one Barney Frank was having with the Tea Party folks.

In my experience, one of the least honest statements I've ever heard (and I hear it all the time) is "prove it".

The unspoken lie here is that the person demanding the proof is honest and capable of being persuaded. In reality, they want you do do all the work, provide all the evidence, explain the model, etc, etc while they sit back and reserve to themselves the right of "judgement". All they have to do is never accept anything, and they "win".

The entire process is just argumentative bullshit angaged in by people who think that rational discourse and professional wrestling are the same thing.

I'm not pretending to be a scientist. All I am saying is that the IPCC model did account for the global cooling that one set numbers showed. And those numbers have come from a a scientist who believes the earth is warming and that it's manmade.

Another article today that NASA keeps revising it's numbers, but won't release data about the revisions they're making.

The Slate article was very good. I do appreciate that. I wish it was longer. It addressed the NASA adjustments, but the author doesn't seem to have access to the data either.

I want to know where the Federal Reserve is spending my money, and I want to see how the scientists are coming up with their numbers. I'm in accounting - an audit never hurt anybody that was honest. ANd this whole "cap & trade" plan was dreamed up by Ken Lay. Sorry if I am cynical, but that stinks of something shady.

I believe the guy who first came up with the concept of global warming has even now decried the data as politicized and false.

We're going to spend more money, and lose more manufacturing jobs, to this than anything we've ever done. It is the biggest tax increase ever in the country, and it will hit the poor harder than the wealthy. I want to see numbers, all the numbers, before I'm comfortable with it.

It's funny that you should mention Galileo, because he was actually the guy that refused to believe the science was settled.

"The unspoken lie here is that the person demanding the proof is honest and capable of being persuaded. In reality, they want you do do all the work, provide all the evidence, explain the model, etc, etc while they sit back and reserve to themselves the right of "judgement". All they have to do is never accept anything, and they "win"."

How intellectually lazy is that? If that were true, most of America would still be supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

I don't understand the science - I don't pretend to. But I doubt that most of you do either, which makes me a little more honest from the outset.

I'm not pretending to be a scientist.

No, you're pretending that you understand global climate models better than scientists. Which is much worse.

And by the way, the "Federal Reserve" isn't spending any of your money. That's not what it does. The rest of the stuff you keep saying is a farrago of Republican political talking points and stupid crap from chain emails found on Snopes.

There are literally hundreds of better ways for you to educate yourself than posting your ignorance on a political blog and trying to argue about it. Assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself, that is.

I'm not pretending to be interested in education of any kind. Which is more than I can say about you guy, who are pretending to like education, but really don't. Prove me wrong.

I'm not pretending to be interested in education of any kind. Which is more than I can say about you guy, who are pretending to like education, but really don't. Prove me wrong.

What the hell does this post even mean?

No, I'm pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw in the scientific method. Putting together a theory based on past behaviors should give a reliable prediction of future behaviors. That's BIO101 stuff.

The models they're building continue to miss on their predictions.

As for the Federal Reserve...that explains so much about your politics it makes my head throb. Apparently you're absolutely content to pay no attention to any of them men behind any curtains.

You'd rather just draw some left/right line in the sand and pretend your side is better than the other side.

If this global warming catastrophe pans out, you should feel right at home in the dark ages.

@DH Walker - that garbled message was an imposter. Look at the name - they mispelled it.

If you can't even understand my posts, what makes you think you can understand complex scientific data? You're not making much of a case for yourself here, Einstein.

OK, that wasn't from me either.

Thanks for the people who actually are intellectually equipped to have a sane conversation.

All I want is facts. And sanity. I don't see why I should be the only one here providing either.

Angela,

"It's funny that you should mention Galileo, because he was actually the guy that refused to believe the science was settled."

Ah, no.

Galileo refused to believe the unenlightened unscientific RightWing religious dogma, which he later proved wrong.

Angela:

Your post of 2:11 doesn't make any more sense than the "imposter"'s.

You aren't pointing out any flaws in any scientific method. All you're doing is describing a particular bit of cherry-picking the data in order to "disprove" the model; if you knew the first thing about "Bio 101", you'd know how unscientific this sort of thing is. And here, "unscientific" means "lying".

You've already stated that statistical analysis has nothing to do with interpreting statistical data, but I'm sure that's just me being unable to understand the "complexity" of your posts.

Apropos of nothing - exactly what do you think the Federal Reserve is?

wow, all this Fed conspiracy stuff makes me wonder what ever happened to our old Carpetbagger friend JKap. . . maybe JKap is now AngelaTC?

MatthewRMarler shows himself again and again and again to be a cynical, deliberate, conscienceless liar.

Same old same old.

The earth fairly suddenly stopped warming after 1998, and none of the AGW proponents knows why that happened

Entirely, and stupidly, false on both counts. Geez, Matthew, can't you even *pretend* that you've done your homework on an issue that you constantly spout on? This is pathetic, even for you.