Laughable stuff.

Seems like you've simply repeated what some blog on a blog has claimed and do not understand what the private e-mails were about.

Phil Jones 2005.

In that Email Phil Jones admitted it hadnt warmed for years while he and his cohort of eco-terrorists were claiming statistically significant WARMING had been going on.. also privy to that email, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Steven Schneider..

They ALL know it's not warmer. That's why it was such a huge embarrassment in the email called 'most damaging' by questioners of their truthfulness when Kevin Trenberth said

"it's a travesty'' (that they couldn't account, for said lack of warming: this, in October 2009. During this same email Michael Mann was seen directing a coterie of scientists how to run a false television campaign scam: to do what? To deny what a reporter on BBC had said. What had that reporter said?

He'd said that it hadn't gotten any warmer since 1998. One month before the release of the Emails, the whole bunch of them were plotting how to silence someone who simply said what Phil Jones had said in 2005, four years earlier; and by their own silence at seeing him say it, the rest of them tacitly admitted they knew to be true. That it isn't warming and hasn't since the late 1990s.

The only reason the world at large hasn't already indicted most of these people for criminal acts is because FIRSTLY the criminals are ALL government employees at the center of this and SECONDLY because the entire world is dicily trying to extricate themselves from contractual obligations so complicated it would blow one's mind to try to consider how far these scams have etched themselves into modern governmental/private policy and FUNDING

And there WILL BE indictments. BET on it.

Download those emails . Read them yourself. You're going to see what everyone else sees, who has ever worked around law enforcement: fraud , fraud, and MORE fraud.

Ironically one of the reasons that I choose to comment on David’s claim that “They control the “peer review” process for research in the field and use their power to prevent contrary research being published” is that you don’t need to know the science in order to look at it, thinking it might be simpler and closer to what people outside of science know. This doesn’t work for points that touch on the science itself, obviously, but that claim was about the scientific publishing industry.

I have said several times that without knowing the context, tone or people involved in these emails it’s foolish to jump to conclusions. There are investigations into these emails, I suggest you reserve judgment until their findings are out.

The “insurance” argument is one that many people (including me) have made, but it gets little or no traction with people who have their heads in the sand.

With greater understanding of the probalistic nature of what is being said (in part through the greater involvement of statisticians in the science) the extremes on both sides will run out of steam, and the community at large will (more appropriately) see the need for a response as a matter of taking out an insurance policy (with the odds shortening or lengthening as the science improves).

Im not claiming anything in what I posted from another site except to repeat what I thought was a pretty good comment from someone else.

I was neither promoting or dismissing solar effects (and in fact the comment itself sort of dismisses it). The statements simply says that there are still many uncertainties.
Me thinks you are – as they say – protesting too much about solar effects. Maybe you know something that worries you about whatever your current position is (and thats obviously not leaning in a solar effects direction!)
I wouldn’t have a bloody clue if radiation is a factor or not – but I do know that no one else really (and I mean REALLY 100% certain) knows either, and casting aspersions at everyone who has a different slant on things isnt going to win friends and influence people……..- well not in the way you might want anyway.