The Science Is Not Settled

Last Saturday’s BBC interview of Phil Jones, the former head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) has been portrayed by some as a “retreat”; that, in effect, Jones is backing off his claim that human activities are catastrophically effecting the climate. That’s putting too strong a face on it. The interview was remarkable, but don’t believe for a second that Jones is trading in his alarmist badge for skeptical credentials. He’s simply engaged in damage control, but this interview was still something of an epiphany.

Jones was the central figure involved in “Climategate,” the release of e-mails and data files from the CRU last November that showed that leading climate scientists had been playing questionable games with data, attempting to suppress contrary opinions, and generally trying to steer their research towards desirable results, rather than allowing results to flow naturally out of their research. He is currently on leave from his position of director of the CRU and his work has been roundly criticized, not only by skeptics, but by many scientists who agree with his position on global warming.

It should be emphasized that, during his interview with the BBC, Jones said he remains confident that human activity is and has been causing global warming that can not be explained by natural causes. Nothing new there. What was stunning was that Jones admitted, in the sum total of his statements, that there is legitimate scientific disagreement about the evidence that supposedly proves the alarmist case. The science, it would seem, is not settled.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of the world when a scientist’s declaration that there is indeed room for reasoned scientific debate counts as a victory, but there you have it. The mantra “the science is settled” traces its roots back to the Clinton administration, when President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore declared that the certainty of the case for global warming, the “fact” that scientists were sure disaster lurked just around the corner, along with the magnitude of the supposed danger, meant that we must stop arguing and start acting. The mainstream media quickly fell into line, as did many respected technical publications like Scientific American and C&E News. The editor of the latter, the signature publication of the American Chemical Society, Rudy Baum, went so far as to declare that C&E News had little interest in publishing papers that might tend to undermine global warming alarmism. That policy led many chemists, including myself, to resign from the American Chemical Society.

Anyone who said that the science was not settled was reviled in the mainstream media, by politicians of both parties, by environmental groups and by ordinary citizens who could not imagine that the media and so many policy makers could possibly have gotten it so wrong for so long. At best, skeptics were portrayed as paid minions of Exxon-Mobil, dangerous right-wing eccentrics or both. At worst, pointing out all of the unsettled science earned skeptics death threats.

And now, along comes one of the world’s foremost climatologists, who has been leading the charge among alarmists for years, finally admitting that:

  • The Medieval Warm Period might have happened and that it might have been a global phenomenon and that – if
  • it was a global phenomenon – the existence of the Medieval Warm Period would make recent temperature trends much less worrisome.
  • There have been other significant periods of warming in recent times, such as the period 1910 through 1940, that were not caused by human activities. (Jones hastened to add that the recent trend can not be explained away by natural causes, a position with which most skeptics disagree.)
  • There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. For Jones, the lack of recent warming is but an aberration within a larger, more sinister long term trend. For skeptics, this fifteen year stabilization is further proof that alarmist predictions are terribly flawed.
  • It’s not possible to verify the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purports to prove that recent temperature trends are unique and therefore must be caused by human activity, because Jones can not put his hands on the raw data.

These are all points that skeptics have made, time and time again, over the course of this suddenly resurgent debate. Alarmists, the mainstream media and most policy-makers dismissed such arguments out of hand. Who cares? The science, after all, was settled. But science is never settled. Science, when it’s done right, is an evolutionary process, constantly refined and always scrutinized. Two thousand years ago, the great thinkers of the day explained natural phenomena in the most rudimentary of terms. Three hundred years ago, a deeply-religious British mathematician discovered the principles of physics that govern much of the natural world. One hundred years ago, an obscure Swiss physicist figured out a way to explain nuances of nature that Sir Isaac Newton could not account for. Today, a new generation of scientists are hard at work filling in the gaps in Einstein’s theories and wondering what he might have gotten wrong.

That’s science. It’s a dynamic, ever-evolving process that demands skepticism if it hopes to arrive at the truth, or at least approximate the truth. Among the vast amount of collateral damage that has been inflicted by global warming alarmists during the course of a debate they have heretofore refused to acknowledge even existed is this: The public’s faith in scientists and the scientific process has been grievously undermined. As Lord Christopher Monckton has observed, these days many scientists appear to be nothing more than politicians wearing lab coats.

Last Saturday Phil Jones took a tentative step towards repairing that damage. Despite all of his previous efforts to derail the scientific process, he should applauded for that. Here’s hoping that more and more of his colleagues follow his lead.

  • poptoy

    Prof. Jones got honest and we should thank him for that. Now lets all proceed with caution. Lets not hurry up like Al Gore wants to do. But remember he is being driven by a profit motive. All of this selfishness has to stop. Honest people in government need to return. If it does not then it looks like we are going to Hell in a hand basket.

  • eyes wide open

    Sea levels are rising , that means glaciers and polar ice are melting .The argument is over the mechanism .There is in fact , global warming taking place .The immediate [ that word being relative ] effects will be counter-intuitive , for if enough Arctic ice melts it will disrupt or redirect the Oceanic Conveyor ,which drives the Gulf Stream , which inturn prevents Europe from having a climate like Greenland . It will get colder in some places .
    Trouble is , there are "scientists " shilling for both sides of the argument ,the alarmists vs pro-carbon interests. Effects of man ? Or natural processes with patterns we haven't been able to recognize ? Hmmm…remember the Ozone Layer ? Oh well now that it is completely politicized [ polarized ] , I'll be looking for some new waterfront property .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

      And the hard data for the alarming rise of sea levels can be linked to, exactly where?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      Please. Spare everyone the BS.
      Let's worry about the real threats to society like mohammedan terrorism.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/The_Inquisitor The_Inquisitor

    "As Lord Christopher Monckton has observed, these days many scientists appear to be nothing more than politicians wearing lab coats."

    Separate science and state.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      Can't separate science and state. This goes all the way back to Sumeria and probably before. The West is coming out of a short golden age where they were distanced for a while. Global Warming is a sure sign that that's just about over.

  • http://www.sedec.org Stanford Mwakasonda

    Lets get this straight. I have been participating in the climate change negotiations other similar forums. I think we have never claimed that the science issues was settled inasfar human activities as the cause of global warming was concerned. We have said over and over again that there is substantial evidence that global warming is associated with human activities, and that rather than wasting time arguing whether this was a scientific fact, we needed to start acting. That is what was settled – that we will no longer debate the science issue. We have always said we cannot afford to wait for 100% proof that human activity causes global warming. We have argued that any action in cutting down GHG emissions and adopting to climate change is good sustainable developement, whether you have your 100% proof or not.

    So what is the big deal now?

    • George Bedway

      What is this “substantial evidence” that human activity “is associated with “global warming”? Were there not global warming and cooling periods in the long history of the earth when human activities were obviously not a causative factor? What is the difference now? CO2, whose picture you would hang on a post office wall, constitutes 6% of the atmosphere. Water vapor constitutes about about 92%. Should we ban water? Smoke your silly pipedreams however much you desire but stay the hell out of my wallet to play with your hobby. Where were you 30 years ago when many of these same fools were telling us we were going to freeze to death? Interesting to note that some of these same fools were telling us that Mao was nothing but an “agrarian reformer.”

      • Grog

        Thanks George, your right, tell the clowns to get out of our wallets –

    • Peachey

      While I do not have the statistical data, I can tell you that by past history, anytime that man, including "scientists", interfere and attempt to disrupt/change that which they deem problematic, the end result is always disasterous. I fail to understand how an impending "ice age" has now morphed into "global warming". Science provides a platform for the betterment of mankind when it is honest, accurate and seeks honorable benefits. The global warming hoax is not a science, nor will it ever be. I would appreciate honesty if within the "global warming" religion cabal they would be forthright and just say that the intent is to create a world where man is diminished and then eliminated so as not to intrude on nature. The worship of the enviroment has superceded the place of man on earth with precepts that target man through de-population and the the reversal of civilization. There is no interest in the benefits to mankind, only the rapid and final removal of man from the earth eco-system formula.This is a true example of genocide.

    • Wayne Adamson

      Nonsense. Even some scientists who support global warming have conducted studies showing that cutting GHG emissions will have essentially no impact on the current temperature rise (or fall). Studies have shown that other planets have been increasing in their temperature as well, so explain that. I don't need the crisis approach taken by those who hate the fact that the world uses fossil fuels. If that is so much of a concern why hasn't the US government allowed a large increase in nuclear power? Should we bomb China and Indian powerplants that are now the major contribution to carbon dioxide production? That's the big deal. It is a big deal to reorder the world energy production on the basis of flawed science.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      You should be completely defunded !

  • ciccio

    The supposed causes of global warming are C02, NO2, water vapour and methane. Only one of these can be pinpointed to targets large and wealthy enough to be taxed, that is CO2, yet that is the one that produces only 6% of the total. I smell a rat.

  • USMCSniper

    The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man–the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For environmentalism, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do.

    The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.

  • BS1977

    THe main agenda of the WARMER leftists: increasing control over society, manufacture, energy production and lifesytle…..These are the Marxist Luddites who want a mono culture of obedient, "green" sheeple…..driving a Prius, living in 450 square foot Soviet style cramped apartments, paying 60% taxes and eating re cycled soy paste….of course, the elites, the big politicians and Gore-o-Soros types will be going to conferences in their Gulfstreams, driving Land Rovers and living in mansions. OF course! As for the rest of the teeming planet. Let them eat cake.

  • jimmyc

    This is the first time I have seen an alarmist of the first order actually admit that much of what the last 4 years of criticism has stated is in fact true.

    Now it would be interesting to go through Prof. Jone's prior statements and see if and how many times he has in fact denied any of these truths previously. It would be instructive also to see this interview given front page news in the major online media sites such as CNN and others.

    Before we choose to massively rebuild the global economy on some hair brained, half understood principles maybe it would be good to re-evaluate all the data and do so honestly for the first time. I think it would also be best that for the foreseeable future that money used for research be distributed not by political bodies who seek a predefined outcome but by organizations who have no philosophical or political bent to them so that money goes to research seeking facts rather than confirming suspicions.

    • Peachey

      Jimmy, sometimes it happens when you are caught with your pants down. By circumventing the scientific method, he eliminated any value or validity of his research. The very basics of scientific research was not followed. When he and others conspired to purge data, all veracity of his conclusions went out the window.

  • Wayne Adamson

    Why is it that the "warmers" keep insisting that we must do something immediately or the planet will implode? Yet there continue to be many studies that show that any of these radical reductions in use of energy generated by fossil fuels will have almost no effect on any changes in the global temperatures. Conclusion, we should all go back to living like cavemen even though the future temperatures may go up or may go down. I can't wait for a standard of living like my great grandparents had: i.e., living hand to mouth with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a humble hovel to live in. Thanks for nothing.

    • Peachey

      Sorry Wayne, I do not relish watching everyone run around naked or in animal skins.However, I do have a solution to the CO2 "problem" as seen by those that practice the "global warming" religion. They have my permission to breathe in, but not exhale. Problem solved.

  • eyes wide open

    You can intrude on Nature , but you can't be immune from the consequences . I do believe that things like the dust bowl of the 30's was man made , and intiurn took a man made solution …which btw worked . Man does change the environment . In Africa there are deserts which are growing by man made mechanisms -remove all the trees which in fact affects rainfall patterns , hastens soil erosion ,beginning a self-feeding cycle , followed by drought , famine etc . Sea levels have been rising , but I guess we can argue ,whether its caused by a warming trend , ice melting OR ….maybe the land is sinking due to tectonic plate motion .

    LOL…either way , I'm still looking for some future waterfront property , So , lets DO keep politics in science …..make me rich man !……and Historyscoper , got any insider info on those Antarctic Volcanoes ?

  • JAS

    God is laughing at the enviro-mental patients.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

    One thing that Dr. Jones, and all the other warm-mongers out there have never fully explained:

    In order for ALL of your assumptions to be correct, the energy activity level of the sun (with a mass of over 333,000 earths) has to remain absolutely constant throughout all of planetary history. It can never deviate, or it effects the amount of solar energy bouncing around inside your "Greenhouse", without regard to how much is captured. And, further, that you have found a way to precisely measure the amount of daily surface precipitation and evaporation of water (which, of course, mankind has never been able to do).

    Can this honestly be your truth claim?

  • gpcase

    Regarding Eyes Wide Open's claim about human activity, you've stumbled onto something, but it has nothing to do with global warming. The deserts of North Africa have indeed grown due to man's activity. During Roman times, the area of fertile land was far greater than it was in Medieval times and up to the present. After Muslim armies conquered the land, owners could no longer hold the land securely due to a lack of private property rights. This resulted in agriculture being replaced by goat herding, which had the effect of dimishing the capacity of the land to renew itself.
    A different story occured in America's Great Plains, where a combination of overfarming of wheat crops encouraged during WWI and later drought led to the Dust Bowl. In neither case did climate change enter into the picture.

  • therealend

    The melting of the the Arctic ice cap doesn't add 1 mm to the level of the oceans. The Arctic ice displaces water. By melting it, the displacement is removed and the level remains the same. You can prove this with a glass, H2O and ice cubes and room temperature. Try it! You'll be amazed.

    • Peachey

      Please, do not bring logic and intelligent argument into the fray. Those that pray at the global warming alter lack the ability to look beyond their Al Gore bible while singing the praises of the UN report on Climate Change.JMO

  • eyes wide open

    re: therealend , your statement is ridiculous . During the ice ages [there have been several , it has already been establishe that sea levels dropped , and rose as the arctic Glaciers retreated . This is not opinion , theory or anything that anyone can argue over .
    Try reading a real science publication sans any politics , like scientific American , Science news and the like . This information has been around foir quite awhile . Certainly , condensation of water in the atmosphere DOES NOT cause sea levels to rise , because there simply isn't enough of it . There are nly two possible reasons for sea levels to rise ,and they are melting ice , or if you wish sinking land .

    BTW Peachy , that was not logic that therealand expiated , it was bad science .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

      Greetings, Eyes…
      Yes, melting ice shields over land masses can add to rising sea levels — There is no equal displacement vis-a-vis the ice-cube in water. But, the ARCTIC has no such land mass. The Antarctic does. For proof of this, simply look for eskers (the long, squat hills left in the Great Lakes and sub-Laurentian plains). They are the remains of inter-glacier rivers.

      But, so what?

      Lake Agassiz and the Champlain Sea are both gigantic bodies of fresh water (four to five times the size combined of the present-day Great Lakes) that no longer exist by virtue of… time. The glaciers melted, the seas were formed, they drained or evaporated, and here we are, 10,000 years later. The fact is, things change. 12,000 years ago, a mile-and-a-half thick glacier sat atop Barack Obama's hometown.

      Notwithstanding vacuums, nature abhors stasis.

    • therealend

      I believe there were several commenters that remarked that the melting of the Ice cap would lead to a rise in the level of the oceans. I think you were one of them. The melting of the Arctic Ice cap would not lead to that.

      That there were 2.5 mile high glaciers in NY tells us what? That there was a warming period back then too? Else, why are there no glaciers there now? I read that there were multiple times that glaciers claimed the northern hemisphere. And then retreated. Whatever you think of my science, it can't be as bad as Al Gore's or Sir James Lovelock's. I could make a great bologna sandwich from their predictions. And it may reach over 2.5 miles high. It would be like a bologna glacier, if you will.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

        I like your science a whole lot better, unlike algores science, yours isn't trying to grab me by the ankles, lift me up, and then shake me.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

      Greetings, Eyes…
      Yes, melting ice shields over land masses can add to rising sea levels — There is no equal displacement vis-a-vis the ice-cube in water. But, the ARCTIC has no such land mass. The Antarctic does. For proof of this, simply look for eskers (the long, squat hills left in the Great Lakes and sub-Laurentian plains). They are the remains of inter-glacier rivers.

      But, so what?

      Lake Agassiz and the Champlain Sea are both gigantic bodies of fresh water (four to five times the size combined of the present-day Great Lakes) that no longer exist by virtue of… time. The glaciers melted, the seas were formed, they drained or evaporated, and here we are, 10,000 years later. The fact is, things change. 12,000 years ago, a mile-and-a-half thick glacier sat atop Barack Obama's hometown.

      Notwithstanding vacuums, nature abhors stasis.

  • eyes wide open

    johncarens , I'm not trying to make a case per se for the present Global Warming ruckus .
    However it has been proven that sea levels have risen after Ice Age Glacial retreats across North America . Also proven is the fact that when Glaciers such as those of the ice ages advance , sea levels drop . The Great Lake s all were formed after glacial retreat , where the tremendous weight of the advancing Glaciers crushed the weaker bedrock leaving great basins and depressions in the land which subsequently filled with water as the glaciers retreated . As for the melting glaciers and rivers ..they flowed to the sea . Lakes evaporate if they are not fed by rivers or streams or if they're not replenished by rainfall

    Fact of the matter is , the present trend is that Global Temperatures are rising , in addition so too sea temperatures , The argument is whether or not man is contibuting to this warming trend , but there is no doubts that we are indeed in a warming trend .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/johncarens johncarens

      WHY is there such an argument?. To ponder this question is to answer it –, because, as we have both alluded to, the climate swings wildly, with or without man and his evil carbon emissions.

      The whole framework of the Global Warming matrix has nothing to do with climate, or what extremely negligible effect man may, (or may not) have on it. It has to do with a pseudo-religious belief system. As you've somewhat correctly pointed out, nature will crush the very stones beneath our feet if it takes a notion to do it. The faith comes in when we think we have the ability to stop it.

      This argument is simply an attempt at reprimitivization, if you will, of our advancing State of Man. We've been lead to believe we can control EVERYTHING in our state of hyper-materialism (The Bomb can eliminate almost all life, we can flit around the planet and near-space at a whim, etc). Thus, serious men conclude, why can't we control the very weather with the cars we drive? Let's throw a virgin in the volcano to prove it: By knee-capping our economy, by such logic, we will control the weather. It is laughable if it was not so deadly serious to our liberties, our freedoms, and our way of life.

      This fraud must be stopped at all costs, or we will lose our nation.

  • eyes wide open

    …and actually these glaciers in parts of NY State were 2 1/2 miles high . That's alot of water . If sea levels are rising , and they are , then there are only two possible explanations – melting ice or continental subductrion due to Plate Tectonics . However at present there is no evidence for the latter .

  • http://www.sedec.org Stanford Mwakasonda

    It is so difficult to understand where all those arguments against climate change action are coming from. All we are trying to do is be proactive to a scenario that might have catastrophic results on our planet. And yes, we are not that definite about the science – read our lips guys! But then, being proactive is part of rational human thinking; we do not lock up our houses at night because we are 100% that we will be burgled, nor take an expensive insurance policy because we are 100% certain something terrible is going to happen. So what is wrong with taking a climate change insurance policy here – just in case? Yes, we are not sure it is human activities that cause climate change – but neither are you that it is NOT human activities. Yes, may be you are right it is not the burning of fossil fuels that is a major cause of climate change – but what is wrong with reducing all those emissions from fosil fuels – the SO2, the pollutants, the haze over cities, etc? What is wrong with using our resources, including fossil fuels, in a more efficient way? What is wrong with diversification of our energy resources? Who really, is taking things out of context here? Please, try to have a broader view of things before you make your arguments, and don’t do it because it is great to portray that you are clever. You may be making clever arguments, but then it is always on a selectively very narrow issue, and at the end of the day it just becomes a null argument against such a wide issue like climate change.

    • davarino

      Wow I'm convinced. I love those kind of arguements. How do you know there is a God? How do you know there isnt a God. Wouldnt it be safer to believe in God just to be on the safe side?

      Ok, so lets assume your right, and you want to reduce CO2 emissions, then go bug China and India first and then work your way down the line. You guys are a bunch of frauds because of that very fact. Why isnt there a crusade against these countries who's air is so thick you could cut it with a knife?

      No you need to have a crusade against the sun.

    • therealend

      You leave out a lot to make your argument. Your portrayal of AGW dissenters/doubters is all too one-sided. That being said, what is Cap and Trade actually going to do? Actually, it would allow people and governments and companies to pollute as long as they have the money. What do the rest of us do? Here's the answer: We will do whatever it takes to stay warm or cool. That's human nature. We will cut down trees in the winter and burn whatever will burn just to stay warm, if it comes to that. Consider the case of Haiti. Their nation has very few trees left. From an environmental standpoint, It would be better that they burn shiploads of coal than what they are doing now. Consider the US where we are led to believe that Compact Flourescent bulbs are an answer. But these contain mercury vapor and many of these will end up in landifills because people will throw them away when they burn out. That is human nature also. Cash for clunkers didn't deliver anything for the environment.

      (continued on next reply)

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      What's wrong? Are you serious? It costs real money, that's what's wrong.
      Most people don't like throwing their money down a fantasy hole because the so called 'experts' tell us it's the right thing to do. It only becomes more distasteful after we find out that the 'experts' are a bunch of liars.

  • therealend

    If you haven't read Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It", he gives a different perspective on AGW and how to manage it. It is entirely unlike Al Gore's spare no expense approach which would do little but delay any warming by a few years, and at a cost of trillions of dollars. I've been called ridiculous here but clearly, Gore's views are not based on good science. They are alarmist. If you are looking at someone to blame for the non-acceptance of AGW, why look further than his kind. He seems to be doing more to harm that cause than anyone. But he doesn't get assailed by your side. He gets an Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize. And it is not Mr Lomborg who advises the President, but Mr Gore

    • therealend

      There have also been a number of stunning revelations about the science which are promptly dismissed or downplayed by the popluar front on this issue. Meanwhile, the doubters are still ridiculed as flat-earthers and deniers of Newton's Law of gravity. If someone could go out and pick a worse way of handling a cause, they would be put to the test to find such a way. The science has been left to the arrogant and so has the politics.

      Nobody I've ever heard of said dirty air is good. Or acceptable. You wonder why there are any arguments at all against AWG. Considering who is taking the lead against climate change, I wonder why there are so few.

  • eyes wide open

    Hmm…first time I heard of global warming or man affecting climate was around 1970 or so .At the time SCIENTISTS controlled the narrative . Oh there were disagreements among scientist , but they were,not based in partisan politics and buisiness interests /.that slowly crept in , until now in the present , partisan politics control the narrative . Now each side "cherry picks " their scientists , and public policy again becomes victim to partisan politics , as the politicians via lobbying , campaign contributions by special interests , and pandering to the uninformed , RULES the narrative . And that is apparent in what you see on this blog , for I hear parroted talking points , partisan euphemisms , and the growing "us against them, " mentality . So much so, that ones patriotism comes into question over now, even scientific issues . Politicians will ALWAYS tell you what you want to hear , and special interests on either side of the issue have hijacked the narrative . So now the argument inevitably degenerates to that ole' "Lefty vs Righty " …..again .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/cjk cjk

      I distinctly remember 'the scientists' wringing their hands over the next Ice age in the mid seventies.

  • eyes wide open

    …and now , comes the STUPIFYING Supreme Court decision regarding Corporations , Unions ,and special Interests contributions to political campaigns ! And under the guise of "Free Speech " ….lol…Really ?
    So this will prove to be real interesting , and the inevitable " what about the children " ? Indeed ! If Mom&Pop are Leftys or Rightys , then they'll get what they deserve huh ? After all we'll really get the straight story now , now that politicians will become corporate robots . What the hell do we need science for ???

    Hopefully our "lawmakers " will legislate that insane ruling out of the picture . Otherwise we can change the inscriptions on our capitol buildings to :

    " Money talks and B.S. goes to the cleaners " [ hey can we fit that on a dollar bill ? ]

  • http://arthritisrelieved.com Hugo

    Amen brother!

  • http://thehealingfrequeny.com James

    If we could only get the truth and cut out all the special interest crap then we could make heads or tails of this. I think if someone is not allowing someone else to comment or show their facts, then that makes them seem like they're hiding something. I am siding with those that are the most open minded and are not afraid of true scientific debate.

  • therealend

    I read one of the articles at this site. It was well done and funny all at once. The premise for supporting AGW has become 1) we can't defend the science, 2) we can't even find the scientific data anymore, 3) we can't successfully refute our critics arguments, 4) the instruments used to measure climate change are all part of a conspiracy to deny AGW, so 4) we proclaim AGW is fact because the skeptics are against it and because of that, AGW is all too real. Fascinating!