Ha. Amazing.

Actually, scientists were not "slandered" in climate-gate....they were caught red-handed in the cookie jar cooking the data to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. Nice link to an Al Gore climate post....hmmm....HOW MUCH $$$$ has Al Gore made off hyping climate change? Telling us the world is going to end as we know it...as he flied around in private jets, drioves around in giant SUV's, and burns enough electricty in his house to light a small village. Puh-lease....Get real. Link to a credible source next time.

You're so lazy. The piece linked to a Washington Post story about the skeptic study.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/a-skeptical-physicist-ends-up-confirming-climate-data/2011/10/20/gIQA6viC1L_blog.html

If Krellin is any indication it's clear that these smear merchants aren't going to let facts get in the way of continuing their well funded big polluter campaign of ignorance and stupidity.

If you're even less lazy you can follow the links right to the study.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/resources.php

So then why didn't you link to the oridinga piece. I'm not lazy...I was pointing out your laziness. And then I will note the WashPost is hardly a legitmate source either, given their natural bias to the left. At work...so my time is limited...I'll provide you about a hundred links later this evening debunking all these claims, which you no doubt will ignore. Actually...you could find them youselves if you had the intellectual integrity to research the other side of the science -- but your religion of global warming disallows you from researching the claims.

For example, the *REAL* evidence is that C02 increase FOLLOWS warming trends....as opposed to the bogus claims that it causes them. The evidence is clear....but you are too afraid to find that out and disrupt your radical belief system.

Ignorance and stupidty is the guy that only looks at one side of the data and believes well-funded organaizations that would lose the jobs if a; the science was truly settled or b; were disproven. For such an anti-corporate guy, Putin, you ought to DISDAIN all these monye-grubbing scientists that say "Science is settled!!" and then stick their hand out for more money to study their assertions. Fool.

By teh way, Putin, the article in reference, if you weren't so lazy to find this out, HAS NOT YET BEEN PEER-REVIEWED....and therefore is meaningless at present time.

But you wouldn't want *legitimate* information to get in the way of your pushing an agenda.

"By teh way, Putin, the article in reference, if you weren't so lazy to find this out, HAS NOT YET BEEN PEER-REVIEWED....and therefore is meaningless at present time."

No, not meaningless. It's worth noting that a study confirming AWG has been conducted by a staunch AGW denier. It's exciting news and a study that is worth paying attention to as it gets more attention and peer-review.

That being said, I eagerly await all the studies you have disproving AWG.

krellin - the Washington Post is a credible source. Bias or not, they still say the truth. If that's not enough for you, I read the same article in the New York Times yesterday.

And the study doesn't go into why its happening, krellin. It merely shows that it is happening, where its happening, and opens the door for future studies. It is actually quite legitimate, and wasn't peer-reviewed because it was released this week.