On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:57:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

I have news for you: Science is not a popularity contest. Science involves
research and the tabulation of that investigation. Just because a bunch of
uneducated idiots don't believe the facts, does not make those facts
invalid.

Suggestion: Go easy on the name calling and labels. Everyone that
disagrees with you is not necessarily an uneducated idiot.

Have you read through the infamous "Harry Read Me" file that
demonstrates the extent to which at least some of the data was cooked?
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I won't pretend to understand it all, but what little I can decode,
reeks of manipulating the results to conform to expected results (or
at least statistically significant results).

Also, I mentioned this in the past, but methinks this might be a good
time to resurrect it. See:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg
This isn't directly related with AGW but it does show that it's very
easy to manipulate trends and projections. That data shown is the
rainfall statistics for my area. If I use an even order trend
extrapolation, the graph is towards drought. If I use an odd order,
it's toward deluge. I note that the "dog leg" has been dropped by the
IPCC, largely for this reason. If you wanna see how it works, the
spreadsheets used to create this are at:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558