and more fraud in the carbon trading scheme:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/

And now, the question everyone should ask: How much carbon reduction is needed to reduce the temperature to the UN target?
Answer: A minimum of 80 years without electricity and without fuel. That is, no heating, no cooking, no cars, no trucks, no tractors for agriculture, no cargo boats and no planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI (Climate-Gate – Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton )

Follow the money….

“The carbon market in the US is expected to be trillions of dollars by 2015, and the technology we are offering is as little as 10% to half of that number”. Earning only 10% of a trillion represents an income of 100 billions a year, which is twice the total wealth of Bill Gates. Guess who is behind this corporation, to become a trillionaire? You have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk

This business of lumping science skeptics with political buffoonery has got to stop. It’s a wonder you didn’t drag up the canard re skeptics being funded by evil oil companies.

The issue at hand is twofold — reliability of data and openness in the process. The data reliability is where the science skeptics discuss things. The lack of openness (e.g. refusal to respond to FOIA requests in a timely manner, if at all) is what fuels the politics junkies.

I doubt anybody is saying what you claim the skeptics are saying.

The research refered to is an attempt to ‘dis-prove’ the existance of the medieval warming period by using a proxy which is so unreliable as to be meaningless. To hide the fact that the proxy is a complete dud, the authors selectively edit out bits of data and substitute instrument data. Then they pat each other on the back for having made the medieval warming period disapear as if by magic.

It’s a deception on the part of the authors and they acknowledge it as such in emails which they though were private.

1. All across the skepticsphere, skeptics are jumping for joy that AGW is a hoax because they think “hide the decline” means the globe is really cooling and that climatologists faked the warming trend
2. Tree ring proxies diverge from the instrumental record from 1960s-1980s
3. This problem has been OPENLY discussed, not hidden, in the literature since 1998
4. When creating graphs that merge instrumental record with proxies, the divergence is clearly seen
5. For some purposes, it can help to clean up the graph by “hiding the decline” since the instrumental record is obviously far more accurate than tree ring proxies
6. Therefore, skeptic claims that scientists cooked data to create AGW are incorrect

>If the tree rings are not accurate for temps now, they are not accurate for temps then, either.

Ice cores, glacial retreat, and other proxies are all independent data sets that show similar results.

>yet another leg of the AGW stool is shown to be self-referential and untrustworthy.

So you are arguing…like this?

1. If tree ring proxies are inaccurate, then CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
2. Tree ring proxies are inaccurate
3. Therefore, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

Or maybe like this?

1. If tree ring proxies are inaccurate, then CO2 is not increasing
2. Tree ring proxies are inaccurate
3. Therefore, CO2 is not increasing

Or perhaps this?

1. If tree ring proxies are inaccurate, then temperatures have not been rising since 1980
2. Tree ring proxies are inaccurate
3. Therefore, temperatures have not been rising since 1980

They don’t know why the tree rings diverge from instrumental records in the late 20th Century, but they do, so merging a graph of (the more accurate) instrumental record with the tree ring chronologies will obviously leave some hanging threads.

Possible problems with tree ring chronologies? Sure. Absolute knowledge of past temperatures from proxies? Probably not. Creating fake data to institute a socialist communist atheist marxist algore obama black helicopter illuminati area 51 chemtrail one world government? No.