If you read the article it is pretty plain to see what was quoted by the scientist, unless you don't believe their words. Face the facts the earth's climate has been changing since day 1 (even without man) and will continue to change into the future. If you want to believe that man is the cause of it now so be it.
Best DI Football Team in the Tri-State Area - AGAIN
I believe that this trend is a natural trend accelerated by man
TRUST THE PROCESS
Pshaw! That theory has been discredited. Think outside the confines of your narrow worldviews! As Dr. Unbago Fitzgibbons argues so persuasively in his groundbreaking 1997 paper, "Volcanos without Virgins: The Climatic Effect", each year without virgin sacrifice increases the chance of major volcanic activity by as much as 10% per year (cumulative.) These major eruptions have a 40% to 50% probabilty of throwing enough dust and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counteract an entire decade of carbon dioxide buildup.
Alls I know is that it has been a damn cold and windy ass winter here! Bring on global warming asap!
Bisonville: Making football coaches out of arm-chair-QB's and jock sniffers for years!
Today's CAS GASF = ZERO
RELUCTANT MEMBER of the TOHBTC
And, don’t believe everything you think—jussayin’.
Liberals of BV need not respond to my posts. I don’t need to get any more dumb.
"Jfufhr dhuis msdjdi asdj."
- Lou Holtz
Just check out the wiki entry to start out with, then follow the links for more info if you want. Basically, the hackers grabbed about 3000 messages and documents and then cherry picked them to get a few quotes out of context. Four seperate investigations found that the scientists had done nothing wrong and that their data was sound. For a comparision, think of your work. If some lay person were to search thousands of emails and documents from a law firm, wouldn't there be phrases and shorthand references that could be misinterpreted to fit anybody's agenda? That's what happened here. For example, the "trick" mentioned in the article was just a technique used to reconcile two or more sets of different data in a legitimate way. Pulled out of context, it sounds bad by people looking for any little thing to discredit the work. In context, the writer was using the term just like all of do every day to describe a simple technique that accomplishes a challenging task.