Well NOAA did get caught fudging data before, although when that data supported the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" position not many of your fellow scientists called them out on that....I mean really why would they there's grant money to be had and one never wants to look like a "denier" when in the scientific community now do they?

I've already tried to explain to you that grant money isn't like winning the lottery, as you seem to believe. At most, an academic scientist can receive up to two month's salary as compensation from a grant - which barely covers the time and effort it takes to write a proposal. See previous link to the NSF grant policies and guidelines as an example.

The reason most scientists in the community don't want to be seen as a "denier" is that the evidence doesn't support that position - no matter what the blogs, media outlets, and skeptic websites want to purport. The scientists are much more informed than any of these people, but unfortunately, these people believe their opinions are more convincing than scientific reason.

This is another reason I want you to do the analysis yourself. I don't think you will see the results you tout as true.


His research...yes scoff at it if you will....but it made NOAA change up their hottest years and months. Mr. Watts found that several weather stations are NOT reporting data and NOAA was estimating temperatures for those stations....not certain you'd call that good data to base any kind of model on.

Well...I'd say that's overstating the case quite a bit. He did find issues with some stations, true enough. But again - as is the case with most skeptics - it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Is it reasonable to expect perfection with every aspect of scientific investigation? Absolutely not. Do scientists expect a certain amount of inaccuracies and incorporate a margin of error into all computations? Absolutely. Do a certain amount af inaccuracies imply that the whole data set should be considered "bad", as you put it? I don't think so, the experts at NOAA don't think so, and the science of statistics doesn't think so.

The effect of the bias introduced into the data was statistically insignificant, as clearly demonstrated by real climate professionals - you know, who actually finished an undergraduate degree and went on to earn PhDs, unlike a certain climate skeptic:

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record - Menne - 2010 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

Watts is not an expert, nor should he be treated as one. I don't hate the guy at all - I think he's a joke. I've read quite a bit of the material on his blog, and it is honestly funny. He likes to discuss his research and findings - most of which have never been published or even submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. The papers he has worked on have been roundly rejected by the climatology community as a whole (e.g., the previous link). If this is the best you can do, then I really understand why you have a hard time understanding science. Some guy with about one-third the credentials needed to perform high level scientific research is not a respectable source of scientific information.

Would you go to someone who hasn't even started medical school for serious medical help? This is about where this guy ranks.

Again even the "Don of Global Warming" Dr. Revell had his doubts about how much CO2 affected the climate.

Much of this ballyhoo was due to remarks made by Dr. Revell taken completely out of context. His daughter published a rebuttal to this claim in the Washington Post, September 13, 1992:

Carolyn Revelle, What My Father Really Said — OSS Foundation

(This link is a transcript of that article - you can check its veracity at the Washington Post archives.)

NOAA has admitted to a very long pause in warming

Ok. Once again, this is misleading. The article you posted

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov

addresses surface temperatures specifically. This does not provide the entire picture of global warming - the experts also consider atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures as well. If you examine the NOAA's FAQ section, the NOAA's position on the question

"Didn't the globe stop warming after 1998, a period when human activities emitted more carbon dioxide than in any other period in human history? And, if so, doesn't this mean climate is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously thought?"

is clearly answered with:

"No, the globe did not stop warming after 1998. While 1998 was one of the ten warmest years on record, the other nine warmest years have all occurred after 1998.[2] It's important to remember that, even during global warming periods, every year won't be warmer than the year before, and there may even be several years in a row of cooler average temperatures. That's why it's more reliable to look at changes between 5-year and 10-year blocks of time over a span of decades before drawing conclusions about climate sensitivity.
It's true that humans have released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from 1998 to 2012 than in any other 15-year period in history, and it's true there was a slowdown in the rate of global warming during that time. Most of the excess heat (>80%) from global warming has been going into the ocean.[17] The point is global warming didn't stop over the last decade; most of the warming happened in the ocean rather than in the lower atmosphere.
Scientists are always reassessing their estimates of climate sensitivity based on observed changes in temperature and ocean heat content. It's too early to conclude that the climate system isn't as sensitive to carbon dioxide as scientists thought, though that possibility is being actively researched."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions | NOAA Climate.gov

But if we're already doomed (and from what most alarmists say we are)...

Once again, this language is the work of skeptics to denounce the reality of what the experts are really saying.

IF we do not take action to reverse current trends, THEN there is a potential for catastrophic consequences. We still have not reached a point where it is too late to stop the warming trend.

...then don't tax the shit out of me for no reason, don't tell me what car I can drive, and don't make life in general more difficult and more expensive.

This is the bottom line, right here. Don't mess up my comforts. Don't make my life difficult. Don't take any actions that might cut into my profit margins.

God forbid we care about anyone other than ourselves.