>>I did not know that about Yourdon. He was a highly respected computer writer and I read a couple of his books.
>>
>>FWIW I am not a radical on the topic of global warming. I have read that among scientists who have studied it there are four groups: those who are convinced it's real, those who are convinced it isn't, and then two groups in the middle who are unsure and maybe shading one way or the other. There are lots of them in both middle groups, so I tend to respect that. The ones I have a problem with -- scientists and non-scientists alike -- are those on the fringes. For some reason the rabid debunkers bother me more, the ones who grab onto nonsense labels like "ClimateGate" as though they prove anything.
>
>Jesus-Jumped Up Christ Mike!
>
>Deletion of climate records
>Manipulation of data points
>Selective distribution of "public" code and data
>Obstruction and ignoring FOI requests
>Manipulation and select domination of the "peer-review" process
>Career threatening scientific journals and scientists
>
>That's just what we learned from the emails, the so-labeled "Climate Gate". When their put in context with the correspondence from those requesting the data and a full examination of the historical record we see a clear picture of manipulation, obfuscation and withholding of critical information from those attempting to investigate the claims of the "consensus".
>
>None of these and the other evidence of everything from bad prediction and mistakes to outright fraud, which is coming out in droves on a daily basis "proves" anything to you? Wow! Just wow!

This is exactly what I mean by jumping to broader conclusions than are warranted. I was not and am not saying some scientists didn't manipulate, obfuscate, etc. It seems clear they had an agenda and acted in an unscientific manner. What I am saying is the actions of these people does not mean there is no such thing as global warming.