and wether they read it or not
the truth keeps comming

The Virginia AG Kenneth Cuccinelli..wants the documents from Mann, who formerly worked at the University of Virginia.

Cuccinelli is attempting to determine..if Mann was involved in defrauding Virginia taxpayers..in his requests for grants
http://epaabuse.com/4343/news/virginia-ag-office-argues-for-michael-mann-climategate-documents/

to fund his questionable research

Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100129892/global-warming-red-faced-climatologist-issues-grovelling-apology/

This "Even though I was wrong
I'm still right" syndrome

afflicts a lot of people in the climate alarmist community. But then, you can hardly blame them for their wilful self-delusion and glib complacency..for they seem to operate in a bubble

*in which there are
*no punishments for failure.

The classic example is Paul Ehrlich who lost a famous bet on "scarce resources" with the late economist Julian Simon (aka the "Doomslayer" because he was so good at confounding environmentalists' hysterical scaremongering

*using actual scientific data
http://www.cancergnosis.com/Chemical%20Chemotherapy/Side%20Effects.htm
as opposed to computer projections).

linked warming hoax..to evolution hoax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/13/teachers-support-climate-change-lessons

Global warming is real, instead of reading every opinion ever written about it , i suggest you just read one scientific site, to get your beliefs from. NASA , If you say nasa is incorrect about global change, there is not much hope for you. The biggest fraud this world has ever seen is religion.

>> science by consensus rather than by science is all the go. <<

Runner, you have no idea what ‘scientific consensus’ means. Science is not a faith-based religion, the likes of which you and ‘one under god’ evangelise.

Quoting in context the Academy of Science:
“Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial and scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers (e.g. Kenneth Cuccinelli, OUG) are typically driven by special interests or dogma (e.g. the ‘religious right’, runner), not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The IPCC and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes.”
Cont’d

Cont’d
When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington (or Melbourne) does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats (a.k.a. Cuccinelli) of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.

Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.” End quote.

Bonnet

I agree with your statement

'Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling'

That is why your summation of the earth's beginning is so unscientific. The evolving evolution myth certainly does not meet your definition of science. It does however meet the defintion of faith or pseudo science.

You also mention computer modelling which in the case of the warming myth varies and has also been proven to be fraudulent. Failed predictions by the warmist high priest certainly confirm the deceit by many warmist 'scientist'.

Everyone knows that many times funding is tied to consensus science. The warming myth is clear evidence of that.

Rummer,

Vacuous assertions and deliberate distortions by faith based bible-bashers is not science - it's obscene.