First they try to downplay the medieval warm period:
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=7465
Then try to deny it entirely:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11233/1168499-373-0.stm
Then they interfere with peer review:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
The Sea level claims were bogus
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/13/us-climate-seas-idUSTRE61C1V420100213
The melting of the Glaciers was bogus and exaggerated:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
The station Data were hidden:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html
Stations were moved:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
Some are completely missing:
http://www.global-information-network-society.com/scientists-using-selective-temperature-data-skeptics-say.html
The 1990's were not the warmest on record after a glitch in a program was found:
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Finds+Y2K+Bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
Carbon Trading behind the money for Climate research:
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/0082826
And to top it all off Wikipedia was compromised:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
Now read all about it and tell me that you have NO DOUBT about the conclusions of the IPCC.
Kiss my ass Bowerbird.
Posts
