[Bagor]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Sorry, Bagor, I don't follow you. Your last sentence is particularly bizarre. Science is all about picking at the holes. The problem with climate "science" is the scientific process has become taboo. That's what's so special about the UEA-CRU emails. It actually shows how those fellows attempt to subvert the scientific process.

Nice to see we're back on topic, if you've read the thread and what has been discussed ad nauseum you'll see that what you claim to be "taboo" is what the e-mails purport to be an attempt to stop junk science getting published because of dishonest editors and subsequent apologies which subsequently got so far out of hand that ....

Repeating and requoting ...FYR the journal in question.

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal. Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_...Research_paper

Originally Posted by zuluking

As per zero evidence, the link I provided (had you read it) is about how the evidence was misrepresented (intentionally or unintentionally.)

That, I accept and concede.
Now... can you address my points where the "observed" evidence has been shown to be greater than the projections? Share your thoughts on that?

Originally Posted by zuluking

Your link is authored by the biggest players in the AGW arena. (Isn't Mann under review at Penn State right now?) Many others sited are very well represented in the Climategate emails and are contributors to IPCC reports. Not saying they're lying (or misrepresenting the truth), but many have been hit by the splatter.

Oh ... no ... you ... don't. FACT of the matter is that no matter how much you'd like to run from the link, all I'm quoting from it is "observed" happenings.

This is exactly what I predicted would happen, take any report, find Mann or Jones in the author list and dismiss the whole report. You've got to do better than that Zulu.

Unless you can prove to me that the "observations" are falsified stop ducking my point that just as where you claimed (and I accepted) that the Himalayan glacier retreat was badly miscalculated so too are the "observational data" regarding Arctic sea ice and "observed sea level rise".

Of course Mann is under investigation, of course Jones and CRU are holding an independent investigation.

Any institution involved in this is going to hold an investigation for transparency reasons. The thing that you should be concerned about is (a) why they weren't outrightfully fired due to all those hardcore cries about "tricks" etc that appear to have lost their weight.

And on the subject of academic investigations for fraud.

(b) why isn't the university of Adelaide investigating Plimer for more DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION and FRAUD?

An example of his fraudulent behavior that HOZ et al have no ethical problem following.

He quotes and cites a fellow scientist Keller as saying

“satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming”

When in fact and in complete context Keller said:

“The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics’ last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics’ entire “tent.” … But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions.”

I can only presume Zulu that you would support an investigation into Plimer and a refund for HOZ re. his deliberate misrepresentation of a colleagues work in an attempt to deceive the public in what has become a politically hijacked issue? Above is one small example. Google "Enting Plimer" for 100+ more in the same book.

Let's move on and agree that the argument against AGW has been tainted by deliberate lies and deceit. Do you concur?