Of course, “all the data” will not include the raw temperature data that the CRU manipulated to achieve the desired results because that information was dumped by the organization a long time ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

This means that other scientists will not be able to check the basic calculations that the CRU made to fabricate a long-term rise in temperature over the last 150 years. Consequently, this is nothing but a meaningless concession designed to deflect legitimate demands for Phil Jones to resign from his position as Director of the CRU and it will ultimately be spun by the Left as proof of the CRU’s “transparency.” The real story here is that there was a small window of opportunity for the climate change crowd to save any remaining credibility it might have by purging itself of elitist hacks like Jones, but that window is just about closed and it’s clear that the powers that be in the eco-ivory tower have decided to stick with politics over science. And that’s fine–they’ll just have to live with the fact that any work they produce in the future will be tainted by this scandal and categorically dismissed. It also means that future scientific discoveries that cast doubt on the existence of AGW will be virtually impervious to CRU’s attacks.

Because that’s how REAL science works. They can either stand, or not. They either be replicated … or not. Et cetera. There is simply ZERO doubt at this point that the upper crust of AGW “scientists” conspired to stifle and crush dissent, hide serious flaws with their own research, and force results to fit into pre-determined conclusions — all in pursuit of political and monetary agendas.

My sympathies go out to the many honest and dedicated scientists in the field who have busted their assess doing REAL SCIENCE, only to find out they have been building castles on low-tide sand.

For example:

The right believes in the liberty of capital, and those who yield it, to operate with minimal constraints. The liberty that allows blacks, or women, or gays to participate in society as fully-free and equal citizens – that kind of liberty the right fought, bitterly.

Notice how Tano believes, truly believes, that this liberty is meaningless to blacks, women and gays — which means that he truly believes blacks, women, and gays are not capable of yielding capital and are his inferiors.

Need more proof? Look how Tano treats members of minorities who do not bow and scrape before him. He tells lies, flat-out lies, about women who do not obey him. He screams and whines that black people who do not vote or think the way he does are “Sambos”, “Uncle Toms”, “house slaves”, and cannot call themself a black man”. Here, he insists that gay people who do not worship his Barack Obama are “self-loathing”, “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, and “beyond reason”.

Tano supports minorities all right — as long as they do exactly what he demands and think exactly the way he orders. If they don’t, he strips them of their minority status and sets out to destroy them. He cannot tolerate diversity of thought or criticism; all must obey and do exactly what Tano says. Since he views minority members as his inferiors, any criticism of him is tatamount to open rebellion — and rebellion must be crushed at any cost.

The recent “global warming” emails show Tano’s mentality perfectly. These “scientists” deliberately manipulated and falsified information. They talked about murdering those who disagreed with them. They set out to destroy the careers of anyone who dared criticize their methods. They lied to the government and then tried to destroy evidence of their lying and their methods.

That is Tano to a tee. That is Barack Obama to a tee. That is the disgusting, putrid core of liberalism, laid bare for everyone.

You’re calling us reactionary bastards who oppose progress, wow! Wow, just wow.

And then you assume we’re afraid of identifying problems. How does one argue with such nonsense? One just shakes one’s head and smiles.

We conservatives believe in smaller government in large measure because we believe a vibrant private sector is the greatest source of innovation, that private institutions cans better identify problems and create solutions.

To see the 1960s as the greatest generation of our nation’s history is to mistake rhetoric for progress (no wonder you like Barack Obama!). The 1960s were an era of social unrest, with the social contract fraying and crime rates beginning to increase while government grew. Go look at the 1980s, as the economy expanded, opportunities increase, minorities thrived, with many moving out of the inner cities and into homes in the suburbs. Not just that, it was an era of innovation, with home computers becoming commonplace and the fax machine helped spread ideas across boundaries and the iron curtain corroding, then collapsing, with new democracies emerging across Europe.

How many new democracies emerged in the 1960s and remained vibrant in the following years.

Well, Tano, thanks once again for a window into your prejudiced world view. You are clueless about conservatism. And you’ve just called the most successful political movement, the ideas of which led to the greatest increase in human wealth (and thus a concomitant decline in poverty), an increase in freedom as a particularly noxious philosophy.

We’ve known for some time that you do hate conservatives. Now, we have a better idea why. You think our ideas our noxious, while you misrepresent the meaning of our movement, seeing it as retrenchment.

Perhaps, to a certain extent it was. You may celebrate the 1960s, but that as an era of social unrest, following by one of economic malaise. The 1980s were an era of social consensus, with gays becoming increasingly open, followed by a decade of continued prosperity (after his initial efforts, Clinton used the better part of his Administration to build on, rather than to destroy the work of the Gipper) and increasing social acceptance of gay people.

I could on and on and on. But, you make so clear how jaundiced a view you have of conservatives. And if you were not representative of a whole spectrum of prejudiced opinion, I might just laugh and move on.

I look at your comment again and see that you’ve written, “conservatism always opposes every issue that ends up defining human progress.” Again, wow, just wow. What a narrow-minded person you are. What an ignorant man you are. To define conservatism as opposed to progress. I guess for you progress is synonymous with leftism.

What my heroes fought against? What my heroes fought against? Do you even know what they fought for?

Please show me where Reagan fought against the civil rights movement and to maintain the status quo of segregation? Where he opposed the advancement of women.

Like I said, I could go on and on and on. So, let me conclude with a bit of rhetorical repetition. You’re so certain why conservatives fought against, but do you have any idea what they fought for?

To borrow an expression from the great Albert Camus (perhaps the first neo-conservative), do you know what values they affirmed when they said, “No,” to liberalism?

No Dan. The right believes in the liberty of capital, and those who yield it, to operate with minimal constraints. The liberty that allows blacks, or women, or gays to participate in society as fully-free and equal citizens – that kind of liberty the right fought, bitterly.

You might personally have different values, as a function of your decency and more likely, your age, but you cannot refute the facts of what your heroes fought against. I lived through it and it was very real.

In the end, conservatism always opposes every issue that ends up defining human progress, and on those issues it always loses. And then the next generation of conservatives, if they are smart, simply accept the progress as a given, and even incorporate it into the tradition that they try to uphold. You don’t realize how ironic, yet satisfying it was to see Reagan appoint the first woman SC justice. When the reactionary bastards fully accept the progress, then you know the victory is complete.

Don’t get me wrong here – I do appreciate an important and valuable role for conservatism in society. Liberal innovators have tons of new ideas to make things better, and most of them are bad ideas. The same is true of all creative pursuits. Scientists – most of their hypotheses dont work out. Artists – most works are simply not compelling. Business innovators – most new businesses go out of business in the first year. So a philosophy that opposes innovation probably saves us all from lots of mistakes. But it also gets in the way of the good ideas.

In the end it comes down to personality types, I imagine. Those who are curious about the world, who are unafraid of identifying problems, who thrive on trying to solve problems – they are the liberals who come up with all these ideas. Those who cling to tradition, who seek safe harbors, who just want to fit in, they will oppose innovation. In the end a healthy society needs a proper balance of the two.

For a generation now, a particularly noxious brand of conservatism has burdened this country – coming to power in direct reaction to one of the greatest decades in our nations history – the sixties, when more people broke through into the sunlight of equal citizenry than at any time in our history. Perhaps this retrenchment was inevitable – I can’t really see that it accomplished much good, but its time is over, thank goodness.

Their solution is not, never has been, and never will be the only one. To claim that anyone objecting to it is a “do-nothing denialist” is untrue. At best, it is based in ignorance. At worst, it is a slanderous lie.

A technological/engineering solution on a grand scale – properly researched, planned and constructed – is the real answer, and as this solution would have the benefit of providing employment in its construction and electrical power free of the limitations of finite coal/oil (and eventually uranium/thorium) reserves (especially if we can really make tidal and ocean-thermal power work properly), it would have been worthy of ongoing support from both sides of politics, even if (or in my opinion “when”, i.e. NOW) “climate change” WAS eventually proved to be a lie.

Instead, the powers that be proposed a money-shuffling Ponzi scheme and a hideous, octopoid bureaucracy to work it. How have we come to this, that we no longer have noble ambition or courage?

But that’s typical of liberalism. No new thoughts or ideas, only smears and lies trying to claim that other people are “stupid” and that, if they were given totalitarian powers, the world would be a better place.

Anyone who’s worked with teenagers can recognize the thought processes of liberalism; again, an absence of wisdom coupled with a complete contempt and belief that anyone older than you are is stupid and wrong. This is why the Barack Obama, classic example of this childlike idiocy, believes that everything he has ever done is “unprecedented”; in the narcissistic, self-centered mind of this perpetual adolescent, truly no one else has any ideas, everyone else is an idiot, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

So, you’re basing the entire conservative movement on what it opposed, presuming that all the various movements of the 1960s are good and progressive (in the real sense of the word) things. And I grant that some were. (Do you mean to suggest that in opposing the civil rights movement Reagan and Goldwater favored maintaining the system of segregation that existed in the South?) And here again, we see your prejudice, defining by progress by adherence to your worldview.

Why not look at what Reagan and Goldwater were for?

But, you’re not interested in that, only in repeating inaccurate left-wing talking points on American conservatism.

To say that the right took the “anti-liberty” position shows such a profound misunderstanding of conservatism that it seems impossible to rehabilitate you. The entire conservative movement was based on liberty.

You accuse us of smearing, but then your entire comment #21 is one big smear. Amazing, just amazing. You are both prejudiced and narrow-minded. You attack something you don’t even understand. And you accuse us of being reactionary. Amazing, just amazing –and entertaining too.

More so entertaining because you spend so much time on this blog reading the words of people you believe to be bigots.

Each word you post to this blog paints a picture of left-wing ignorance and intolerance.

Huh? Goldwater and Reagan were extemist right-wingers. At least in my calculations. I grew up in the sixties with a worldview shaped by the civil-rights movement (both of these conservatives were opposed), the woman’s rights movement (ditto), the gay rights movement (ditto), the consumer rights movement (ditto), the environmental movement (yet again), and the realization of the tragic mistake of Vietnam (dtto again).

The modern conservative movement in America was founded around the wrong position on every major issue of the day. They systematically took the anti-liberty, anti-equality position, and built their political coalition around all the Southerners who fled the Democratic Party over civil-rights, and extended that coalition with appeals to the authoritarian and quasi-theocratic instincts of the modern Christian right. Reaction and backwardness are the fibers and sinew of the modern conservative movement.

No matter how you spin it, the sky is not falling and a already angry populist is getting even more angry. The sleeping giant has not just awaken; it is rising!!!

Guess it can only be a smear when those who disagree with you do it.

No, I don’t find your argument convincing, but would (please consider that “would” signals the use of the conditional tense) “buy into it,” in the sense that I’d lend it more credence if it would not part of a strategy to mandate the use of such technology.

Wow, you do have this need to besmirch your critics. To be sure, some of what you call “deniers” do have political motives, but so do the folks are your side of this debate. Others are dispassionate scientists. That you call them lunatic says a lot about you.

Oh, um, now, who’s the reactionary unwilling to change their views, Tano? We’ve just seen a whole batch of e-mails released which show how advocates of AGW have been playing fast and loose with the data. And you’re the one arguing as if nothing has changed. You can dress up the actual language of the e-mails, however, you want, but it doesn’t make it any less dishonest. Dispassionate scientists don’t attempt to hide inconvenient data or trends; they address them and adapt their theories accordingly.

Can’t you just admit these folks made a mistake? And you relied on dispassionate scientist, who prefer to smear those who offer conflicting theories than address their arguments?

Tano, once again, why do you spend so much time here if we run such a smear site. And please, please, as I’ve requested before on other matters (but then you never respond to the challenges I make to you), identify those smears, chapter and verse. If you’re calling us out, well, then call out specific smears we’ve made.

Meanwhile, you’re suggesting scientists with whom you disagree are lunatics. And that’s not a smear? Hmmm. . . . Then you go on to accuse me of lunatic smearing . . . So, instead of avoiding the question and rolling on the floor in your maniacal laughter, you might want to consider your own bile. ‘Cause the very tone of your comment doesn’t suggest someone laughing at us, but venting his spleen at a convenient target.

And you do so my misrepresenting the very tone of this post. It’s speculative, wondering. I don’t say all those scientists have rigged the data. I do look into why they’re so beholden to a theory.

As to smearing, well, just look at how you describe conservatism: “long tradition of political reaction and backwardness.” Have you ever studied (outside left-wing blogs and in liberal treatises) the origins of the modern American conservative movement. To even suggest it has a tradition of reaction and backwardness is to focus on the extreme right-wing movements in America and ignore the rise of the Goldwater-Reagan right.

You spend so much time on a conservative site, yet remain blind to what conservatives stand for.

Thoroughly dishonest mudslinging, Tano? That sounds about right for what you do everyday when you comment to this blog.

An even weaker story than CRU. Totally phony “questioning’. The adjustments to the raw data are perfectly standard, are well known – in fact even the people who “broke’ this story have had the explanation for months, because they were freely given them when they asked. Once again, more thoroughly dishonest mudslinging, that amounts to nothing.