Seeing as you haven't the inclination to read what the actual scientists have to say (or you'd realize that none of that claptrap jives with the IPCC), why would I want to read any of that politically motivated nonsense?
If you know anything about science, you know that there's no such thing as "settled" science. Science isn't a binary, yes or no, black or white, proposition, and your entire premise thusly fails.
We know things with varying degrees of certainty. What we know know is akin to knowing that being morbidly obese probably has a good chance of negatively effecting your wellbeing as you age. If your doctor tells you there's a 90% chance being 400lbs will shorten your lifespan, you don't wait around for the other 10% to come in. You act in a mode of self preservation.
In any event, upon any close examination,
to subvert peer review and prevent publication of papers that didn’t completely agree with the favored theory;
to manipulate data, and the analysis of data, to make the best case for the favored theory;
to avoid releasing their data under the Freedom of Information laws in the U.S. and UK.
This is a gross misrepresentation. The paper in question was rejected because the science was poor, so poor that in fact the original publisher resigned and admitted it wasn't worthy of publication. There is no evidence of untoward manipulation of data, that argument is based on a gross misrepresentation of what's meant by the word "trick" in a scientific context (ie, the "trick" you learned for doing derivatives and integrals in calculus, assuming you got past algebra...hence your reference to "smoking gun" emails is utter rubbish when viewed within a scientific consensus...the word "trick" refers to a handy and easily repeatable way to understand how to account for a series of data points that initially seems to pose a problem), and the FOIA issue was merely a function of excessive and spurious requests from NON SCIENTISTS looking to tie them up and obstruct their work. What's more, they were requesting data that wasn't CRU's to give.
Try reading what actual scientists have to say instead of the nonsense offered by McIntyre and Watts.
In any event, your premise is amongst other failures guilty of the "well Phil Jones did something that appears untoward therefore we can call into question the AGW hypothesis" fallacy.
Rubbish.
AGW is the accepted explicitly by the following:
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents:
PDF,
PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
Sorry bud, if it's them vs. your anonymous linking to politically motivated blogs...it's just no contest for the rational individual. But I'll offer a chance at redemption: consider the basic nuts and bolts of the
CO2 problem, and point me at anything in those ILLEGALLY HACKED emails that calls into question any of the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations will have a negative effect.
For that matter...while we're talking hacked emails...imagine the goodies we'd find if the skeptic denialist Inboxes were hacked. Hilarity would ensue.