Is’nt it funny that most courses run at tertiary institutions have now an Academic Literacies Unit within them. These, in the very early part of the Bachelors degrees (in whatever disciple you are studying) allude to: manipulation of figures, statistics, and fiddling of data, facts whatever to achieve your thesis statement.

Amusing more so to read the hyperlinked articles on Google, Yahoo etc, when you Cut & Paste a sentence from any of the posts here.

Get yourself a scholarship funded by an axe grinding entity, put up your thesis/rant/hypothesis, voila a BA ! Dictu mirabilis! so…surely our astute OLO audience could not be fooled by such transparently implausible garbage as what we are all fed from government & quasi government agencies?

Plenty of raw data around - take for instance the quoted :
(see link below)

http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data

Quote: "Ken found that the “Mackay Sugar Mill Station” was far hotter in the 1920′s and 30′s but GISS “disappeared” this data. However, if we add the warming period back in we find that the warming trend almost disappears to become less then 0.2 degrees per 100 years!" Unquote.

If NASA can do it how much more of this stuff gets through as Gospel?

The CFC vs HCFC Wankfest…it was only due to DuPont De Nemours losing their 100 yr old patents on CFC production that the “Hole in the Ozone Layer” came to the fore.

Thank God for the collected data like that from Mackay Sugar Station. How long before it too….’disappears’?

As predictions of

Severe events are confirmed

Deniers get shrill

Frankly I think the whole AGW debate should be put on hold until the
IPCC runs their computer models against the Upsalla Uni Global Energy
groups available fossil fuel figures.

The IPCC projections, I understand are based on three possible
projections of available quantities of fossil fuels.
The Upsalla group has produced significantly lower values than any of
the IPCC figures.

As far as I have heard the IPCC has not published any new projection
using the Upsalla figures. Until they do so I can see no point in
discussing AGW.
I would have thought to do a new run with the new data would not
take six months or more. Perhaps they have and don't know what to do
with the result,

It does not take much imagination to forsee the uproar that would
occur if it meant that temperature rise would be significantly less
than preciously expected.

Re: “severe events” and AGW.

Samurai beware,

do not confuse bushido

with pure bullshito.

bonmot, Deep-Blue,

In addressing the invitation to support your faith in the AGW phenomena, you have an outstanding opportunity to nail skepticism once and for all.

bonmot says <<I doubt very much that whatever I did say would make any sense to you, whatsoever.>>

Deep-Blue says <<What’s the point, when no-one has a clue >>

The point is that here on OLO we have constantly asked two questions of AGW, they are; what makes some people skeptical and what makes some people advocates?

All the questions, and more, that are documented in the letter by Malcolm Roberts to David Karoly, are clear, concise and detailed reasons for skepticism by some. These questions will not just disappear as they are the core of skepticism.

All that is needed now is for the advocates to provide clear, concise and detailed reasons for their advocacy.

I beg to differ to both of you, OLO’ers will definitely “understand”, we do “have a clue” and we are perfectly capable of “making sense” of responses to these questions regardless of whether they provided by David Karoly or yourselves. All you have to do is give us something, anything, in response to the questions.

If you cannot or will not offer responses, we must draw our own conclusions.

We've had spindoc's spin

This is why he's getting shrill

Expect more of same:

http://tiny.cc/y6ati