::::::::
Climate-Gate: it's not going away. Not yet, anyway.
So, while all the pundits and apologists for both sides are busy slinging feces, let's focus on the science, and not political agendas. Let the facts lead us wherever they may. After all, that's how science works.
The only problem for many, however, is will they be willing to accept the results - especially if they contradict, dispute, or completely disprove their preconceived notions (pro OR anti) about AGW?
I am one of countless scientists who wholeheartedly embraced AGW for years, based solely on the purported "consensus" of the "entire" scientific community. (I was lazy, I admit it) Until a few years ago when I studied the data closely, that is. Scientists do not bow to "consensus" - just as Galileo, Copernicus and over 30,000 of my fellow scientists have shown ushttp://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php. (How's THAT for "consensus," Gore?!)
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Further, what does it mean when the "facts" are based upon shoddy (at best) or wholly manipulated (quite likely) data? Until the cloistered cabal known as the CRU coughs up its ENTIRE body of source data, algorithms, etc., the case for AGW is suspect.
What's that, you say? The raw temperature data upon which the research was based was intentionally discarded? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Oops!
This would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Leave the planet in better shape than you found it? Absolutely!
Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? All for it!
But, to believe we can "save" the planet through the taxation of the life cycle is not only folly, it is murderous (if you don't know how this is so, simply look into the Copenhagen Agenda and consider thoroughly its third world implications).
Further reading: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
I say, let the debate rage on! But, please let it do so based only upon the science.
$0.02/MZ
