This is rich coming from the CC poster who has had a long drink from the if-the-data-doesn't-fit-change-the-data-so-it-fits-our-theory-global-warming-climate-change-global-climate-disruption-crowd's koolaid.
Well that's a nice strawman. I bet you can't even find an instance where I said data should be changed because it doesn't fit. No data needs to be changed. The top of the atmosphere radiation flux is net downward. No amount of changing data is needed. That fits entirely with an atmosphere that is becoming more opaque to infrared radiation.
Go ahead, find any instance you can. You won't find any. Some of us are actually more interested in understanding the truth about reality than we are about being right. I wouldn't expect you or Petros or any of the other science challenged in this forum to understand that. Please give me my Walter now.
If I were a "denier" that might be true, but would be no less irrelevant.
How can obfuscation be irrelevant when your entire rant is about the science community engaging in obfuscation? You use one scapegoat to cast doubt on an entire community. If you think this is irrelevant for policy matter of potentially great importance, then I have to wonder what you could say is relevant without inventing a completely ad-hoc and ludicrous model of how the world should work.
When the science community says there is no debate, well on some things there just isn't. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. There's no debating that, at least not without being completely ignorant of the physics, or invoking logical fallacies. Industrial activity has increased the concentration of many greenhouse gases above the long term (let's say the last 800,000 years) variability. That is undeniable, and cannot be debated without being completely ignorant of the physics and geology of Earth, or invoking logical fallacies. Human activities will and are changing the climate, and the records of the past we have to look at are loud with the risk that is imposing. The climate changes all the time...yes, so what? That's like saying people die all the time, and not being concerned by outbreaks of new disease. Risky business.
Some issues are debatable, like how much warming can be expected. In fact this is an issue that climate scientists
are debating. There's pretty good agreement on the range which we should expect, and that comes from the geologic record, and has been confirmed with general circulation models.
What the Hearltand Institute and other fake skeptics do is pull very small samples out of that total package of accumulated knowledge. As much hay as was made from the stolen CRU emails, no papers were forced out of the discussions leading up to the last IPCC synthesis report.
The last point I will make is about the double standard. The will to act or not is not a scientific question, it is a political question. The fact that you expect one side to be virgin white clean, and the other is expected to not be, says more about you than anything else. It's very dirty; people receive death threats, people are harassed with nuisance lawsuits-another hypocrisy of the Heartland Institute by the way- and people's credibility is tested all the time.
So what's left? One scientist who admits he posed as someone else to receive materials not intended for him. Yeah, that's bad, very bad. But he admitted to it. Someone stole emails, and those emails were used to drag people through the mud, to go on witch hunts, that amounted to nothing by every investigation that took place.
And you want to hold one group higher than the other? Let me indulge in some fake sceptic cherry picking for juxtaposition here, clearly the scientists
are holding to a higher level of accountability and honesty.
Then why do you get so upset? You're worse than a teen girl when confronted.
Poison the well much? Yeup.