Why would big money tip you off to not believing it, when oil and gas companies have literally trillions to lose and have been funding massive campaigns through propaganda think tank institutes and false grassroots orgs to discredit the work? There's your money trail.

Still, if the money trail is the argument, then you might as disregard everyone in this world, except maybe poverty activists, and even they get accused of lying for cash.

The Mann 'Hockey stick' is *not* key research. There is no key research anymore. There is massive amounts of independent research from multiple angles coming up with the same basic conclusion. You could throw the hockey stick out, and nothing would change conclusion-wise. Kyoto was developed with the research, and just because because it once graced the cover of an IPCC report years back (2002, I think), never meant that it was the be all and end all. Just because the denilalist community says it was, doesn't make it so. That's just a straw man argument.

Given the charges, the emails are innocuous. No world conspiracy mentioned The code complex. Seems to be if it was a farce, the code would actually be rather simple: "Draw these lines. END"

There is a huge amount of peer-reviewed publications which have to be understood in order to understand why certain lines of data have to be normalized or ignored.

Your "hide the decline" accusation is actually fully explained in a 1998 issue of the peer-reviewed journal NATURE. Published in plain site, the authors of the tree ring data say to disregard the data set after 1960. In plain site, that's not much of a conspiracy.

There are literally millions of pieces of data behind the hockey stick, and many, many such modifications were called for. Unless you work through all the peer-reviewed information, you likely can't argue it wrong.

The only answer, in the end, is for the scientific community to answer for itself. A pile of bloggers and conflicted think tank hacks will never produce the necessary objective research. At this point, it 's all speculation and rhetoric.

Anyway, I'm not expecting to convince you, but some things need saying.

"Kyoto was developed with the research"

should have read

"Kyoto was developed without the research"

I'm with you. I never believed the hype over climate change, then my father, who worked high up in Environment Canada for over 43 years, said to me that it was garbage.

We only have historical weather data for Earth (and then only a smallpart of it) for just over 100 years. Beyond that there are only anecdotal accounts of isolated incidents of an environmental nature. Earth's weather is cyclical.

What cause global cooling during the ice ages? Man didn't have an impact before, during, or after either of them and Earth warmed up again.

All cyclical.

The important part of this post is your point of what man is doing to damage Earth from dumping chemicals and polluting the air, etc. That is the real danger and is what gets lost in the global warming debate. Who has the most to lose if that issue is brought to the primacy? Why not create a diversion, take the spotlight off the polluters, and redirect the attention to the bad people who leave their lights on.

I'm all for green energy and other alternative fuels. Just get on with it without demonizing someone else just to make a point.

I never thought of it like that, but it really is true.

Arguments were somewhat convincing initially but later you seemed to have lost track and releid on emotive thinking. this emotive thinking took you away from reality and influenced you to come up with recommendations (most) that are unrealistic.
Otherwise a very well written article