Data raises doubt about climate case!
What would a little trawl through ten years of Lord Monckton's emails show?
Does David Bellemy really believe that climate change is false or is it just a grudge campaign against television companies who have replaced him with more sexy wildlife presenters?
What does Iain Dale say about climate change, when he exchanges scripts with Guido Fawkes? Does Fred Singer get funds from coal companies? Where does the skeptics paper trail lead?
Well I am not a hacker and as you know from previous blog posts I believe passionately in data privacy.
However one snippet has popped up, which reveals what the climate skeptics really think
"The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither solar variability nor anomalies in the temperature record offer a mechanism for off-setting the much larger rise in temperature which might occur if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases were to double or quadruple."
"Lindzen' s hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the uper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change'
So they don't actually they feel they have a case against the climate change hypothesis!
Instructive paragraphs from a document obtained after court action, http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/8/82/GCC_Primer_Draft.pdf