How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[daveman]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Yes, you long ago made it plain which answers to your loaded question you'd accept and which you wouldn't.

As a matter of fact, your predetermined conclusion is not at all unlike climate "science".

 

[jc456]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Traditionally, the proper name for such a scientist is "climatologist" ... I understand language changes and new words and phrases are added all the time, and that slowly the term "climate scientist" is creeping into the lexicon as a synonym ... perhaps this helps the ill-informed to understand ...

I don't know where you're getting your science news ... but if you think all the world's climatologist agree with you, then I'd guess you're reading the National Enquirer, New York Times or Scientific American ... all of which are heavily biased towards their commercial mandate, they publish whatever makes them the most money, hardly a basis for scientific accuracy ... I'm sorry, when put to the question, most climatologists will say it's too soon to tell ... but who buys magazines to read that? ... obviously not you ...

You are also greatly misinformed if you think climate models produce discreet results ... they produce distribution curves ... if we take the most extreme points of our curve using the most extreme scenario, then we get the top story on NBC Nightly News ... nevermind the vanishingly small probability of this occurring ... NBC is there to sell you Rolaids, and whose stomach doesn't churn at the news hypercanes will be making landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes ... the major problem with climate models is that we can only include factors that are known to science ... that which remains unknown cannot be programmed into our computers ... up-thread I discussed average cloud cover, hell's bells, we don't even know how clouds effect temperature, the forcings work both ways and we have no idea how much either direction ... if you'd ever investigate the claims you so wholeheartedly believe in, you'll find the research wasn't about what the measurement are, but rather how to measure the effect in the first place ... the original authors make no claim to accuracy, "This is what we did, and these are the numbers we came up with, more research is needed" ...

Hydrothermodynamics in Middle School ... you are confused in these matters ...

This is where I get the idea that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC; that AGW is real and represents a significant threat: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

I have no idea what prompts your comment about GCMs. I am aware that they are generally run repeatedly using different scenarios predicting future, non-deterministic conditions (ie, how human CO2 emissions will change over time). There is a great deal that IS known to science but is not yet included in models, but with every passing year and every iteration in the continuous improvement in computers, the number of factors passed over grows less and less.. I'm glad to see you admit that the net effect of clouds is not yet determined. That was my position from the start. If you want to argue that GCM's uncertainty makes them valueless, I'd have to say you're full of shit. I fully accept they aren't perfect, but they are of value and a value that is growing over time. In general, GCMs have UNDERstated the trends and consequences of global warming.

So what makes the majority smarter than the minority? So one is smarter only if one is in a majority? Hmmmmmm

 

[ReinyDays]

You seem to have missed the point of the entire thread. Most deniers believe, whether or not they will admit it, that they are smarter than the world's climate scientists. They accuse them of lying to make money. They accuse them of saying anything to get research grants. They come up with points that a junior high student wouldn't have missed and claim all the world's scientists missed them.

I accept the word of scientists, particularly on a topic on which there is almost universal agreement among them. AGW is just such a topic. As to my intelligence, the only thing I'll say is that I'm smart enough not to make a puerile remark like yours and I suspect you made that remark because you realize you are just the sort of person for which the lead post is searching.

Traditionally, the proper name for such a scientist is "climatologist" ... I understand language changes and new words and phrases are added all the time, and that slowly the term "climate scientist" is creeping into the lexicon as a synonym ... perhaps this helps the ill-informed to understand ...

I don't know where you're getting your science news ... but if you think all the world's climatologist agree with you, then I'd guess you're reading the National Enquirer, New York Times or Scientific American ... all of which are heavily biased towards their commercial mandate, they publish whatever makes them the most money, hardly a basis for scientific accuracy ... I'm sorry, when put to the question, most climatologists will say it's too soon to tell ... but who buys magazines to read that? ... obviously not you ...

You are also greatly misinformed if you think climate models produce discreet results ... they produce distribution curves ... if we take the most extreme points of our curve using the most extreme scenario, then we get the top story on NBC Nightly News ... nevermind the vanishingly small probability of this occurring ... NBC is there to sell you Rolaids, and whose stomach doesn't churn at the news hypercanes will be making landfall in Florida every fifteen minutes ... the major problem with climate models is that we can only include factors that are known to science ... that which remains unknown cannot be programmed into our computers ... up-thread I discussed average cloud cover, hell's bells, we don't even know how clouds effect temperature, the forcings work both ways and we have no idea how much either direction ... if you'd ever investigate the claims you so wholeheartedly believe in, you'll find the research wasn't about what the measurement are, but rather how to measure the effect in the first place ... the original authors make no claim to accuracy, "This is what we did, and these are the numbers we came up with, more research is needed" ...

Hydrothermodynamics in Middle School ... you are confused in these matters ...

This is where I get the idea that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC; that AGW is real and represents a significant threat: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

I have no idea what prompts your comment about GCMs. I am aware that they are generally run repeatedly using different scenarios predicting future, non-deterministic conditions (ie, how human CO2 emissions will change over time). There is a great deal that IS known to science but is not yet included in models, but with every passing year and every iteration in the continuous improvement in computers, the number of factors passed over grows less and less.. I'm glad to see you admit that the net effect of clouds is not yet determined. That was my position from the start. If you want to argue that GCM's uncertainty makes them valueless, I'd have to say you're full of shit. I fully accept they aren't perfect, but they are of value and a value that is growing over time. In general, GCMs have UNDERstated the trends and consequences of global warming.

I'm glad to see you admit that the net effect of clouds is not yet determined. That was my position from the start

You clearly posted "less clouds" ... as though that was an obvious fact ... it's neither obvious nor a fact ...

So... here we go again:

In general, GCMs have UNDERstated the trends and consequences of global warming.

You've already determined the results you want, just a matter of finding the right model result to back up your claims ... climate forcing of 8.5 W/m^2 as predicted by the RPC8.5 scenario is far far to the extreme of what is possible ... outrageous you would say that's an understatement ... in general, we won't know how accurate these models are out 100 years for another 100 years ... duh ...

Statistics is just another tool in the scientist's tool box ... in of itself, it tells us nothing ... there's still a human being that interprets the results ... what statistics is really good for is pointing us the right direction ... but at the end of the day, statistics are not proof ... we still have to explain the physics going on ...

How are these models programmed to account for everything we don't know about the climate system ... (which is more than what we do know) ...

 

[jc456]

Eat shit. Any reductions America makes will be more than offset by increases from India and China. So you wanting to cripple America's economy is not only stupid, it's useless.

crick just isn't smart enough to understand. just saying.

 

[jc456]

It actually includes NONE of the scientists whose work I value. The list I was adding him to was that of people who believe they are smarter than all the world's climate scientists.

So I have my answer to my question. You do believe that someone is smarter only if they believe what you believe. hahahahaahahahahahaha all gold.

 

[ReinyDays]

Eat shit. Any reductions America makes will be more than offset by increases from India and China. So you wanting to cripple America's economy is not only stupid, it's useless.

crick just isn't smart enough to understand. just saying.

Crick's smart enough, just too damn lazy ...

 

[Crick]

It actually includes NONE of the scientists whose work I value. The list I was adding him to was that of people who believe they are smarter than all the world's climate scientists.

So I have my answer to my question. You do believe that someone is smarter only if they believe what you believe. hahahahaahahahahahaha all gold.

I believe that people who reject the nearly universal conclusion of the world's scientists on AGW (and any other theory as widely accepted) are being stupid.

 

[jc456]

I believe that people who reject the nearly universal conclusion of the world's scientists on AGW (and any other theory as widely accepted) are being stupid.

how many out of how many? Do you even know the number of people that would be? you have a position and you will adjust the records for your purpose no matter your error on counts.

I include the actual climate for my review. and since I've been in Chicago, 45 years, nothing has changed. Nothing. I also know the surrounding states haven't changed. so just the mere presence of climate normal, makes your geniuses wrong. And since i can adjust, i must be smarter then them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It actually includes NONE of the scientists whose work I value. The list I was adding him to was that of people who believe they are smarter than all the world's climate scientists.

So I have my answer to my question. You do believe that someone is smarter only if they believe what you believe. hahahahaahahahahahaha all gold.

I believe that people who reject the nearly universal conclusion of the world's scientists on AGW (and any other theory as widely accepted) are being stupid.

They sure aren't Nobel Laureates, like Michael Mann, eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

How? Be specific.

 

[Missourian]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

I'm no expert on climate science...but I am an expert on the scientific method.

If HR= all human recorded temperature data from 1850 to present...

...and if AP=all reconstructed proxy temperature pre 1850...

...and MA=all post 1850 proxy temperatures...

...and AP and MA were extrapolated using the exact same method...

If MA is not congruent with HR then AP is not valid data.

My understanding is that Climategate revolves around this very anomoly...and to hide the anomoly, the post 1850 algorithmically reconstructed data (MA) was eliminated after 1960 and the human recorded data (HR) was substituted because the MA data was not congruent with the historical human recorded record beyond 1960...casting significant doubt of the entire set of reconstructed data (AP).

MA being congruent with HR is the science.

Failing that check on the reconstructed proxy data makes all the proxy data suspect.

Without valid reconstructed data, there is no data to apply any science to.

So instead of divulging the truth...they covered it up by misrepresenting the data to fit the desired result.

That's not science.

 

[jc456]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

I'm no expert on climate science...but I am an expert on the scientific method.

If HR= all human recorded temperature data from 1850 to present...

...and if A=all reconstructed proxy temperature pre 1850...

...and MA=all post 1850 proxy temperatures...

...and A and MA were extrapolated using the exact same method...

If MA is not congruent with HR then A is not valid data.

My understanding is that Climategate revolves around this very anomoly...and to hide the anomoly, the post 1850 algorithmically reconstructed data (MA) was eliminated and the human recorded data (HR) was substituted because the MA data was not congruent with the historical human recorded record...casting significant doubt of the entire set of reconstructed data (A).

Without valid reconstructed data, there is no data to apply any science to.

so you're saying the scientists lied? Manipulated the data? and we caught them? seems we are smarter.

 

[Missourian]

so you're saying the scientists lied? Manipulated the data? and we caught them? seems we are smarter.

Smarter? Smarter is hard to define. Like most criminals...they caught themselves. Only by reading their hacked emails did someone who understood the science or the modelling piece it together.

 

[jc456]

so you're saying the scientists lied? Manipulated the data? and we caught them? seems we are smarter.

Smarter? Smarter is hard to define. Like most criminals...they caught themselves. Only by reading their hacked emails did someone who understood the science or the modelling piece it together.

well if that was true, then why aren't the studies torn down? deny the deny.

 

[Missourian]

well if that was true, then why aren't the studies torn down? deny the deny.

I suspect...and this is entirely supposition but it makes sense to me....that this is a combination of Sunk Cost Fallacy, true believer rationalizations and Machiavelli-ism.

Here are this entire group who have either dedicated their lives to, or staked their reputations on a theory that makes perfect sense to them...or they were sucked in by peer pressure or political correctness...

...but the science just never panned out. They are literally invested in failure.

How many people admit they are wrong?

Plus there is political and social pressure to keep the house of cards from toppling...and the media is completely invested as well.

And they rationalize that "it's for the greater good".

It's a recipe for self deluded disaster.

 

[jc456]

How many people admit they are wrong?

I do all of the time. money stops coming in, if they take down their versions. I know, i get it, I can't justify it though. there's just no moral platform to stand on. And for this idiot crick to say if you don't agree then you are automatically wrong, when proof exists they are indeed wrong, well, chafes my ass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That cloud cover will remain constant through the next several hundred years ...

Oh yeah? And who taught you that? Couldnt possibly be the same scientists that endorse the overwhelming scientific consensus, could it? Or is this the product of your own lifetime of dedicated research?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't see the tools with which we used to post up polls but we can ad lib.

Just tell us in the comments. How many people believe they are more intelligent than all the world's active climate scientists. In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

I wish some of these frauds would apply the same principles to scientific theories that arent out of step with their overwrought political nonsense. Until i start seeing them stick forks in outlets and jump off their roofs knowing they will fall up, i have to chalk all of this up to "Know-nothings that reserve their idiot science denial for their political fetishes".

 

[daveman]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

I'm no expert on climate science...but I am an expert on the scientific method.

If HR= all human recorded temperature data from 1850 to present...

...and if AP=all reconstructed proxy temperature pre 1850...

...and MA=all post 1850 proxy temperatures...

...and AP and MA were extrapolated using the exact same method...

If MA is not congruent with HR then AP is not valid data.

My understanding is that Climategate revolves around this very anomoly...and to hide the anomoly, the post 1850 algorithmically reconstructed data (MA) was eliminated after 1960 and the human recorded data (HR) was substituted because the MA data was not congruent with the historical human recorded record beyond 1960...casting significant doubt of the entire set of reconstructed data (AP).

MA being congruent with HR is the science.

Failing that check on the reconstructed proxy data makes all the proxy data suspect.

Without valid reconstructed data, there is no data to apply any science to.

So instead of divulging the truth...they covered it up by misrepresenting the data to fit the desired result.

That's not science.

None of the models, when past climate data is plugged in, can accurately represent current climate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In case you were unsure, if you have EVER put up a post that accused all those scientists of lying, of being biased by "donations and bribes", of claiming that they put out results to please whoever pays for their grants, you should post "ME!". Got it? Okay. Can't wait to see the results!

Well, I haven't said any if those things. I've only said their models have been terribly inaccurate and they have no scientific proof of manmade global warming.

And that whole hockey stick "hide the decline" fiasco somewhat soured any uncritical faith in their prognostications.

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline

Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decli...

www.americanthinker.com

I'm sorry but your talking points here show that you are not particularly familiar with this topic. Global climate models (GCMs) have been quite accurate though several denier factions have been utterly dishonest and intentionally deceptive in their attempts to make them look bad (ex: Roy Spencer). * The original "hockey stick" graph (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, 1998) was criticized for a flaw in its statistical analysis and was corrected (MBH 1999 and later). No lay person could tell the difference between the old and the new, particularly since the numerical results - how much warmer the world has become than it once was - were completely unchanged by this "correction". The comment about hiding the decline and was a comment taken completely out of context. Phil Jones, then director of the Hadley Met Office in the UK was referring to a statistical procedure used by researchers Michael Mann and Keith Briffa to compensate for changes over time in the proportionality between tree ring thicknesses and temperature. Before you jump to the conclusion that this was done to make warming look worse than it did, note that this change happened in the latter half of the 20th century where there were plenty of accurate thermometer data against which to see the change. The "trick" made the data more accurate, not less.

If you have rejected global warming because of these two points, I think you need to reexamine your position.

* - A Google search on scholarly articles on the accuracy of climate models: Google Scholar
For a layman's critique of Spencer's GCM "analysis", see: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception
For a lengthy but objective discussion on the development and accuracy of global climate models, see General Circulation Models of the Atmosphere

I'm no expert on climate science...but I am an expert on the scientific method.

If HR= all human recorded temperature data from 1850 to present...

...and if AP=all reconstructed proxy temperature pre 1850...

...and MA=all post 1850 proxy temperatures...

...and AP and MA were extrapolated using the exact same method...

If MA is not congruent with HR then AP is not valid data.

My understanding is that Climategate revolves around this very anomoly...and to hide the anomoly, the post 1850 algorithmically reconstructed data (MA) was eliminated after 1960 and the human recorded data (HR) was substituted because the MA data was not congruent with the historical human recorded record beyond 1960...casting significant doubt of the entire set of reconstructed data (AP).

MA being congruent with HR is the science.

Failing that check on the reconstructed proxy data makes all the proxy data suspect.

Without valid reconstructed data, there is no data to apply any science to.

So instead of divulging the truth...they covered it up by misrepresenting the data to fit the desired result.

That's not science.

None of the models, when past climate data is plugged in, can accurately represent current climate.

Silly, embarrassing lie that would get you laughed out of the room, if in the company of research scientists.