Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

AWWW, ain't you cute Josephus? You read this one complaint where a smartish dude reads a book and gets a bad case of moral outrage and publishes a letter he's later going to be embarrassed about. With some insomnia last night, I think I sent an email like that at 3am last night. It happens. When he wakes up from his one-book approach to life he's going to be so embarrassed. I mean, did he even check the wiki?
_______________

The mainstream media picked up the story, as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009.[12] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway... it is a growing threat to society".[14]

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[16]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

"* are we to trust the temperature datasets or not? ;-)"

Yes, that's why I suggested you check it. Have you done that yet?

"* Have they been homogenised or not? ;-)"
They've been homogenised but unhomogenised data is also available. Your question is rather strange, suggesting you don't quite under the issue. All temperature data is available in both forms.

"* Why did you prefer unhomogenised? ;-)"
Because it better displayed the point I was making. The homogenised data showed it as well but not quite as clearly ie I was trying to make the point easier for the those of a certain bent to understand. But I did say check either. My point that you were wrong remained valid either way. But I get tht you are trying very hard to not understand that.

"* Why did you dismiss the studies in the link I shared?"
Did I? Where did I do that? As per usual, I don't expect that you'll be able to show where I did it.

"* What don’t you like about their science?"
Did I say that? Where?

"* What links do you have that demonstrate that the pre 1940 temperatures somehow contradict our understanding of climate science?"

The pre-1940 data shows that your uninformed claim that "CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet."
That's all. But you continue to try to avoid admitting that.

"overt paranoia that “they” are cooking up"

You're the only one talking about 'them' cooking up data. Paranoia indeed.

"(Despite getting those computer models and running them backwards against historical records and confirming that they work!)"

Now I know we're in an area that is going to be beyond your comprehension, but running the models backwards doesn't prove they work. Running them forward and seeing that their prediction were right would prove they work. They don't.

"* Who is this they, and how much cool-aid does one have to swallow to see them?"

You're the only one talking about this mythical 'they'. So why ask me?

/cont

/cont
"Repeatedly going over and over them again"
Because you refuse to acknowledge you were utterly wrong or attempt to show otherwise. Ethics in't a big issue with this one.

"* When was the last time you had a BBQ "

Now we're into the bizarre. He's increasingly deranged as he's shown to be clueless. Actually, I had a very pleasant afternoon yesterday among family and friends. 5th grandchild's naming ceremony (Christening replacement). But not a barbie - fires bans and all that.

Max, do you know what psychological projection is? Perhaps you should check it out.

"We're not the ones pushing an all powerful global conspiracy"
Actually you are. A conspiracy by some mythical cabal of fossil fuel executives to hide AGW...or something.

I on the other hand haven't mentioned or so much as suggested a conspiracy of any sort.

Here's my guess as to why Max is determined to ignore the issues and instead try to paint anyone who fails to fully agree with him as a denier.

Last year Max was running around here claiming that the math proved we only had a given amount of emissions before it was all over. Every time someone spoke up he'd ridicule them and told them to "do the Math". So I did and proved his claims were rubbish. Next post he completely backtracked and shortly thereafter he stopped posting. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

Of he went to places like The Conversation, where he could get away with his BS unchallenged because alternate voices are banned.

So he comes back here, confident he can now hold his own against those silly deniers. Only to find out that his caricature deniers don't exist and that he has to argue the nuance. And he can't. And he's becoming increasingly deranged as he realises that.

BELLY,

"But it did get mhaze showing he needs no science or real evidence, to sustain his augment"

I thought you were better thanthat. The last time round, I showed you the science and you not only didn't address it, but pretended to not even see it, pretended it didn't exist.

MHAZE,
Here is where I said something about the 1940's, but you rushed past it.

It's the post where I said:-

"the variability and the warming in the early 20th Century wasn't as great as it is now, but was still significant given it shows that even the small amounts of CO2 we added then had an impact."
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

I also linked to the world's top 4 temperature databases that all confirm the warming trend really kicks in in the second half of the 20th Century, not the first half - where your 'argument' lies. I'm now aware some of the links to the temp databases have expired, but I'm sure you have the intelligence to look them up. Whether or not you have the intelligence to accept what they say, well, that depends on your attitude to them being 'homogenised.'

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295184

Also, this:-

"1890s to 1940: Average surface air temperatures increase by about 0.25 °C. Some scientists see the American Dust Bowl as a sign of the greenhouse effect at work."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9912-timeline-climate-change/#ixzz66F4RWLzv

Just a thought right now another one of the 60 fires still burning in NSW has got out of hand again
It started a very long way from the Pacific highway, but now threatens Iluka, on the coast
WA SA, Vic, Qld, and NSW have had about the same number of fires
And they are near to having burned out two million hectares, and it is not yet summer
By summer's end that number will be more than twice its current number
A Royal Commision will again be called
The evidence will lead to recommendations that will again, be ignored
What will be the result if the following 12 months is the same as this last year
Some will continue to say climate change is not taking place