http://www.debrajmsmith.com/112809HL1.html

Now, I am going to contact Kevin and tell him just how cool, I think he is!

Blessings all,
Debra…

)

I am going to get to work on adding this post of yours, RV, and Kevin’s comment to IC. I’ll post the link to it, right after it is up.

This is too cool! Don’t mess with the weathermen, they know their stuff!

Debra…

It must feel great to finally be vindicated!

Most of the media is hoping it will all go away with little notice but that can’t happen. Yes, spread the word!

Thanks for posting here! We know of your stance concerning the AGW fraud and we were also skeptics, but I guess we can now be considered truth tellers.

You caught flack for your stance against AGW at the Little Theater showing of “Inconvenient Truth”. I’ve caught flack for the same reasons over on the D&C commentaries and was told that I was a lunatic for claiming that peer review was stacked for AGW “believers”. The “Climategate” emails have proven that to be true. You are a weather professional as I have been in the past, in the USAF Air Weather Service. We’ve both worked in the field on the practical level and climatology records show that warming and cooling trends are due to natural causes and also solar cycles.

We’ll keep on spreading the word. Thanks again for posting!

Real science is never about telling the other side that the debate is over, because science is about explaining our findings in the best way possible. All theories (and AGW isn’t even a theory, by merely a hypothesis, since it isn’t testable since we can’t run a control and test experiment) are open to being refined or falsified by future observation, whether or not the results can be duplicated etc. Even stuff that we consider scientific law is open to debate if we find compelling evidence that our existing understanding is incomplete (modern physics has shown the simplified understanding of traditional physics laws to be incomplete in many cases).

So why the demand to end debate? Precisely because they proponents of AGW know the science behind their hypothesis is suspect, even more so if they know they’re trying to cook the books (and even going so far as destroying data, which is a travesty for any type of scientific research). They only have one option at this point if they want to retain any type of real credibility, and that’s the one thing they’ve been utterly resistant to all along. Open up everything – the raw data, the models, the fudge factors, EVERYTHING. Then let the science be scrutinized. If everything is on the up and up, they have nothing to fear by having their work vetted, right?