"If the British group fudged their data, as alleged, it could not have been by much because they still got the same answer as the other groups."

Exactly! We KNOW that one set of data was riddled with errors, omissions and post-hoc adjustments for political purposes:

http://tinyurl.com/ycr4jq3

But the other data sets match it almost perfectly...

So what does that tell us?

All this hoopla from the denialists and skeptics has put doubt in a lot of peoples’ minds regarding the veracity of AGW.

However, I agree with Geoff Davies that ‘Çlimategate’ amounts to nothing more than a storm in a teacup and the denialists are on the wrong side of history.

Those against AGW have given it their best shot….and they did a pretty good job. But that’s it, they’ve effectively burnt themselves out, and the veracity of AGW will come to prevail.

In effect, the denialists have helped the cause, by basically getting it out of their system in one big tantrum, and in so doing, increased the resolve of those who a concerned about climate change, to show how foolish they are.

----

PS - Susan Prior, could you possibly insert the missing graphs in this article.

Geoff Davies is fudging. The contents of the hacked e-mails are only part of the damination of the IPCC report contents. That report was based on the work on climate history and the charting of temperatures over 150 years. That was the heralded solid basis for the conclusion the globe was warming.

Geoff omits to tell us the reason for the resignation of the Directer of the Hadley Unit at the University of East Anglia, the Unit that produced the info for the IPCC report, was not the contents of the e-mails but because the Unit had lost the raw data collected and used to formulate the history of world temperatures.

What sort of scientist losses his raw data?

No Geoff, sorry but your explanation has ignored the major relevant fact and as such you are unimformed or fudging. I reckon fudging. I'd have to ask why?

Geoff Davies, and Andrew Glikson – how to combat their “alarmist” statements?

1. They depend upon computer models. Crook stuff, those. Models should be generated using calculating machines; ah, too much like computers. Perhaps using the tool of logarithms would be acceptable – no; suspiciously modern, Napier dreamed them up only 300 years ago – and he was a Scotsman anyway – totally unacceptable. Best to get back to the quill and paper – Biblical Papyrus preferably.

2. The climate is always changing - have them by the short and curlies there! And life thrived after such changes – oh, better be quiet about that word after; most species died out in the process of change, if not in the first extinction the next, or the next – great slaughter: evolve to another species or terminate your line of evolution! Protozoans given special licence.

3. They have not the field experience, the long-term view of the history of life on earth. Wait a bit - just might have to put that one on hold, damn! It seems that these blokes have been poking into four billion years of the planet’s pedigree, wading through the spiky leaves of spinifex in the process.

4. Ah well, Homo sapiens is the pinnacle of evolution and designed to cope with anything mother nature can throw at it. So what, if we came down from the trees a couple of million years back to paddle around in grassland, –we survived the Hyenas; had the brains to develop fire-lighting capability for that. Pity about agriculture having capability of persistence only over the past ten thousand years; dare-say we have the brains to cope with conditions of three million years ago – sure to develop the evidence of that shortly.

Of course the "skeptics" have been very clever in their use of the word skeptic.

They have thus been able to frame the shouting match to make it look as though they are open minded about the situation.

But in Truth they are really just one-eyed true believers.And thus, in effect, lackeys for big business and their 24/7 "public relations" or rather global spin.

Just as those who call themselves skeptics re the existence of God, paranormal phenomenon and "alternative" (that is non-allopathic) healing methods. Such people are true believers in the reductionist dogmas of scientism.

quote from the change-agent...<<And many people..who claim scientists are conspiring on global warming..just to obtain research money overlook..the trillion-dollar incentives of fossil fuel..companies to conspire to deny global warming>>.

lol not that the quadrillions this new carbon dospennsation/credit will raise...through eternity.

ps please proove..not just billion...but trillions,...dude
from what time..you figuring this over?../..how much say since 2002..?

<<The scientists became suspicious..they were being set up in a political sting operation.>>>thats good because they were[and that were from govt and bankers...not big petro

<<They were receiving..seemingly>>>or unseemingly...seems by the emails they did unseemly things..chgange manuipluate data..mat..change data?..distort peer recvieuw...?

these are science BASICS..mate...add in the revelation of its a shame the data..dosnt reveal warming??

huh?

<<excessive requests,from people they weren’t familiar with?>>>
great name this extensove list of economists/lawyers and polititions/bankers....,

<<not only for publicly-available data..but for details of intermediate calculations,..for computer code,..even for computer code that would run on any platform.>>>oh and it seems compuyter programers and spooks

<<The full record of the emails is one of conscientious>>?..lol

the full list is extensive...the proof of their crime is in three

<<very hard-working/scientists..trying to ensure..the science wasn’t distorted by political interests.>>>yet funnilly enough the proof reveal;s they FAILED

<<Is the idea..of a sting operation/just another crazy conspiracy theory?>>>mate we had sars scares...y2k...bird flue....the meltdown..the BAILOUT...immediate bailout...seems we are getting the fear campain,,,again..when the tax...wont fix the problem..its supposed to cure

PERMITS TO POLUTE
mean they will be..permitted to polute
thus no change..except a subsidy to polute...lol

sold by spin merchants like you

<<What is striking is..how readily many people..who call themselves sceptics...>>>or scientists...climate scientists...whaTEVER CLIMATE CHANGE IS...climates change...i live in a sub tropical climate

sceptics//lol..<<have been willing to swallow..without question the>> science interpretation....<<spun from highly selected,..out-of-context emails>>>issued revealing an conspiricy to decieve

change numbers
subvert revieuw
create a fiction
support a lie

to bring on a cure/...that dont treat the symptom..one little bit
for a problem...their own email reveals...dosnt match their/your theor