>>>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 it means is that there is no, zero, zip, nada trust that can be placed in the very organizations which have been spoon feeding the general public their self-aggrandizing propaganda while walling themselves into a cocoon-like "pal-reviewed" bubble, only emerging to further the cause or insult their critics.

It's one thing for Gore to invest in eco companies and proselytize about policy to benefit his own pocketbook and snag a couple awards. It's quite another for the head of the IPCC to oversee the publication of the "scientifically-sound" document which contains provably false evidence which he will use to his personal and professional monetary benefit. Not to mention a Nobel.

>What I am saying is the actions of these people does not mean there is no such thing as global warming.

That the earth warmed during the last century is a provable, measurable scientific fact.
That the earth has not warmed during this century is a provable, measurable scientific fact.

That man has any significant influence one way or another is an unverified theory at best. My personal opinion is that the theory is wrong due to a combination of incorrect assumptions, data corruption and a human error prone group think which has poisoned the process. Regardless of that, the scientific method requires the establishment of measurable, repeatable tests to prove the theory. None, zero, zip, nada of those measurable targets for the theory of AGW has been met. Under the scientific method this disproves the theory, under AGW it means they move the goalposts.