Global Warming Information

If the creators of the hockey-stick graph doctored the numbers to create that result, and the entire AGW theory is based upon that graph, how strong of a case in a scientific capacity do the AGW folks have?

The climate is changing — nobody refutes that, so what does this say specifically to the AGW hypothesis?

A refresher:
1. Hypothesis
2. Experiment (What happens when the experiment is doctored?)
3. Conclusion (Reliable conclusion?)
4. Report Results

If the conclusion is false based upon a false experiment, doesn’t reason tell us to return to step 1? Doesn’t science demand it?

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those proving a claim — not on the skeptics denying it. That so-called proof given by AGW advocates just took a huge blow.

Please keep your answers rational.
Bill – "Bill: From your article you post: "The "Mike" is Michael Mann, "hide" means to account for, and the trick referred to is how to resolve a question involving two sets of data." I’m completely blown away that you swallow that w/o flinching. Is this guy seriously speaking for the two who haven’t even spoken yet? Lucky for you, I’m a seasoned statistician. We don’t refer to data manipulation as "tricks" and I don’t attempt to "hide" anything when mining RANDOMLY sampled data. That means we don’t pick our data points to achieve a desired outcome. To do so is unethical. I reject your hypothesis with 100% confidence and conclude you’re reaching.
Rudy – That’s the best argument you have? B.S. Managerial Economics – statistics is my strong point.
Jason – Check Bill’s link. These guys are on damage control and they’re doing it in a hurry. The direct quotes are there w/ half-witted explanations to what they "really meant" and even attempt to redefine common words like "hide" and "trick".
Mystery – What does that have to do with the compromised science supporting your AGW claim? Environmental consciousness has very little to do w/ AGW except for giving people another reason to be aware of the problems we face. Do you think AGW owns a monopoly on that idea? Was it not around before the doomsday scenarios? Could it possibly be people choose to clean up the environment on its own merits rather than ascribing to junk science to attain that goal? Be careful there, you’re right on par w/ religion’s stronghold and self-proclaimed ownership of morality…that is to say if you don’t believe in it than you can’t know it and by default don’t care about it. Illogical and scary grounds to be on…that’s cult speak. There is only room for objectivity in science — I believe my question is clear in that regard. The environment needing our attention has nothing to do w/ the legitimacy of AGW science, or lack thereof.

More goods: Environmentalists call for Jones’ resignation.

"In one of the most damning messages, Professor Jones appeared to respond to the death of a climate sceptic with the words ‘in an odd way this is cheering news!’"

"…the emails appear to show researchers manipulating raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html#ixzz0XpBTmTQm
"Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.""
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

For reasons I don’t fully understand there seems to be a move to lower our standard of living and stop progress. The group leading the charge of global warming are not going to lower their living standards,ie. Al Gore. When you say the debate is over on climate change, that is when you lose my support.