By doing so, the global warming cult that is unraveling before us has severely damaged the credibility of a conservative, conservation mindset that far predated the current "green" trendiness.

I couldn't agree more. I'm also a lifelong conservationist, birder, park-goer and park-supporter, energy-efficiency nut. Drive a fuel-efficient car. Use gas-saving tips. Minimize use of heat in winter, A/C in summer.

This fraud in the AGW issue makes my blood boil.

"The biggest scam being perpetrated right now is that climate is stable, or can be stabilized. It will always change, and there is nothing significant we can do about that."

The first 60 years of my life were spent in New England, where we absolutely KNOW the weather and conditions are always changing. We pay close - but not scientifically close - attention. Personally, I have never, ever put a dime's worth of stock in the AGW junk science - the evidence simply was NOT there.

I'm a lot like wolfwalker; conserve to a fare-thee-well, but I've never been guilty of buying snake-oil.

Amen. NOW can we storm the castle?

Conservation for the most part makes sense financially. Going easy on the heat/AC makes for lower energy costs to the consumer.

However you notice that "green" technologies and "organic" food are often much more expensive than their traditional counterparts. They are the domain of the upper middle classes who can afford it, people who can shop at Whole Foods rather than Walmart. The truly rich don't bother with it for the most part as they probably don't go shopping for their own food.

To steal from Bill Clinton, "Its the economics stupid!" Make environmentally friendly technologies market competitive and you'll see wider adoption.

You don’t have to go far to find out exactly how the NZ AGW brigade cooked the books. They explain exactly how, and they’re proud of their work!

Check out “NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist”,
Hot Topic, Nov. 26, 2009,
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

For instance, they absolutely had to make the old records colder to make the lines fit together!

And the newer records had to be adjusted upward, to make the lines fit together!

Apparently it never occurred to them to just calculate the averages. Maybe the problem is that calculating the average temperatures just makes everything look so... boring!

First and foremost I AM A CLIMATE SKEPTIC. Second I am knowledgeable, I look at what is printed daily.

So let me list the things that I think the vast majority of us can agree.

1. Yes, the planet is warming. But, that is/was to be expected after recovering from both a "Little" and "full blown" ice age.
2. Yes, there is a Green House effect caused by trace gases. The most prevalent and frankly most powerful of them is water vapor. This Green house effect does cause some warming. No, we do not know how much of that warming can be attributed to these trace gases.
3. Yes we do see some marginal rise in Sea level. As well as some subsidence of land masses. No, we do not know what is the overall effect of these two changes.
4. Yes, we have geological indications of climate variations. But, many of the peaks and valleys of those variations exceed what we are seeing today.
5. Finally, with all those caveats no one can say with any finality that the current climate is outside normal variability.

Unless you believe item 5 to be false, then you can be considered to be a climate ignorant. Yes, that even applies to scientists, especially those who have been predicting catastrophic results.

I once asked a AGW True Believer, "What IS the Ideal temp of the planet and when has it ever been at that point?"
They ignored the second portion of the query and replied by quoting "'What is the ideal temp' How about the one that prevents the coastal cities from being flooded"

Pointing out the coast has been flooded before, and well before humans btw, and likely after as well, and also that the reason the Great Lakes are not rising in level is because the Ice shelf receded from the last Ice Age, the area had risen in Altitude due to the rebound of the crust after all that weight was removed (The CN Tower is many Feet above sea level higher than it was when built, and well the sea level hasn't dropped that many feet) so some of the ocean floor may likely be doing said same, and well New Orleans is below Sea Level not because the level is rising, but because the City is sinking into the mud. They built the levees and the river no longer floods, so the area is settling, and taking the city with it. All that was ignored, and I was called a fool for not worshiping at the Church Of Gorebull Worming.
They also refused to admit that Water Vapor is the single largest Greenhouse agent and in total we contribute 0.28% to all greenhouse agents, 0.117% of the amount is man made carbon.
Yes folks, That is the reason were gonna die, 0.117% of a total is gonna kill the planet.
They refused to believe my numbers, even though they came from such rightwing nutters orgs as the EPA, NOAA, UN, and NASA.
If Algore practiced what he preaches , I'd still not believe him, but he'd be wrong instead of lying. He is like a Pope, always in a brothel having an orgy, preaching abstinence.

CoRev:
It is not that far out if you realize A: the readings now are the more accurate (the exact temp today is easy to get, what is was many years back is a wider window) and B: many of today's numbers are "false" in that they are intentionally read at the high end.
Taken together, we are at the high end of the variance, not likely outside it, but if we are, it is more likely due to natural causes than anything we are doing.

What is really killing the AGW folks is the temp has dropped since 1998. We be Coolin' when they claim we are doing nothing to stop the Warmening!
They have been claiming we were going to all be miserable from the heat if we did not do what they wanted, yet we have not, and the temps are dropping.

We have had warming spikes in the past much like this, but how accurate the temps are for them is a wider range, so a real scientist cant say for sure and certain that it is exactly like this one.

I believed, even in the 60s-70s "cooling" scare, that the US warmed since the late Eighteenth century. I was less certain of the climate of the entire Earth. Now, it looks like world-wide average has been rising. A bit. Greenland isn't yet back to exporting grain...

But...

The IPCC was formed to investigate possible human influence on Global climate. Fair enough: but said organisation almost immediately started to state (at least in climate-for-dummies, er, politicians, summaries) that only humans influence climate. Since IPCC was constrained to human influence, there could be no other [admitted] influences. That is like someone who investigates the amount of dead skin cells in navel lint saying there is no other possible source of lint in any context, even textile manufacture, because all he sees is dead skin cells...

"'What is the ideal temp' How about the one that prevents the coastal cities from being flooded"

In order to do that we will need to lower the sea level by increasing the size of the glaciers (or forcing another ice age). One may think an ice age means a colder world...

To increase sea water locked up in the glaciers we need to get more snow pack, which means we need to increase precipitation, which means we need more humidity, which means we need warmer oceans, which means... we need global warming to save the coastal cities.

We were discussing this issue last night and came up with some thoughts to run by others.

First, as to seas rising. Only the south pole has a land mass beneth it. Therefore, if the north pole melted, there would be little difference in sea level as the volume of water is note increased as the ice is only water in solid form and thus accounted for in present levels. It seems from some reports that the south pole may be increasing in size. But even if it melted, would that account for a significant increase in water volume?

Second, much has been made of CO2 in the upper atmosphere and its influence as a green house gas. But how does it get there? CO2 is heavier than air. It seeks the lowest level. Now thermodynamics could pull it up but that would mean an increase in CO2 at our level and I have not seen that reported. Other than being a toxic gas at high level, is there really a disadvantage to an increase in CO2 production? Plants use the substance, carbon particles are certainly of benefit. So were is the problem with CO2?

The whole thought process on this problem is flawed. No one has really demonstrated what is wrong with a warmer earth. On the other hand, if the earth cooled, that is a problem.

Here is the latest wonder of "peer review" .. the latest Mann paper has some of the data inverted. Seems they used the X-ray density data instead of temperature. The proxy relation is that it should have been inverted, but Mann and his co-authors and the "peer review"-ers let it go by without inverting the data before using it as a temperature proxy.

The entire "peer review" process in climate science is corrupt, lazy or stupid.

David,
I wish I could come up with the link right now (I will look), but I once read that the atmospheric greenhouse theory itself was at odds with those pesky LAWS of thermodynamics, perhaps along the lines you mention.

Further, regarding the atmospheric greenhouse theory, it seems that while a greenhouse might be useful for a layman's analogy, that the greenhouse concept is far too grossly oversimplified to be a useful model from a technical perspective.

A real greenhouse is a controlled, closed system, reacting to just a few inputs. Our atmosphere/climate is not a closed system, and it reacts to an exponentially larger set of inputs.

Sea level is a similarly complex issue. The claims of sea level rise assume a closed system only involving ice and the oceans. Again, it's not a closed simple two-mode system.

Let's say it's hot enough that the Greenland ice sheet melts and all of the water goes into the ocean at first. The higher temperatures then cause evaporation, which subsequently leads to rain over land masses. Some of that rain is then impounded in geological aquifers, some in man-made reservoirs, some in plant/animal life, and some in bottles on the store shelf. While the bottled water may make it back to the ocean fairly quick, the water trapped in the aquifer may take thousands of years before it returns to the ocean.

The alarmists' either/or ideology displays a lack of intellectual maturity. When we were all in pre-school, things were simple, and object was round or square, black or white. But for most of us, about the time we reached middle-school and algebra class, we learned that multiple variables could independently and/or collectively affect a result. In spite of their apparently worthless degrees, it seems that the alarmists never quite grasped the concept.

CY,

Without commenting on U East Anglia (which is at best a godawful mess and at worst outright fraud), as I understand it the Kiwi's corrected (at least in part) to account for the VERTICAL movement of a met station.

Disclaimer: I don't buy AGW, and I am an engineer, not a "climate scientist."

In any event, the EnZees assert that the station was relocated to a higher altitude, and they further assert that a standardized correction for temperature at altitude was applied to every datum recorded after the move, in a flat manner.

IF that is true, we skeptics need to be very cautious not to overgeneralize. Just because UEA hacked their data does not invalidate every data correction applied by everyone. Some are not unreasonable.

Note that I am not saying the New Zealand correction was accurate, merely that it appears to have been objectively and reasonably applied.

Food for thought. If anyone can demonstrate the correction was unreasonable, I'd love to hear it. The more genuine inaccuracies we skeptics can pile up, the better.

There is no need to engage in any real examination of any natural phenomenom to know with perfect certainty that, from a scientific standpoint, AGW has always been a fraud. Quite simply, the secreting of the data on which the "theory" was based takes AGW definitionally out of the realm of science.

"Quite simply, the secreting of the data on which the "theory" was based takes AGW definitionally out of the realm of science. "

Thanks you Megapotamus.

The world need to know this.
Science is about theory and finding the truth. Once you've lied on a scientific study you have lost all credibility. Forever.