There are several threads under this sub-forum that deal with Climate Change, nearly exclusively from the skeptics’ point of view. It use to be confined to the "Decade of cooler Temperatures" thread but that peter-out with my reporting there on the findings of Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) effort that clearly shows the climate has been warming -
I noted there that one of the three legs of the skeptic's stool had now been clearly knocked out. I also noted there that a second leg, i.e. temperatures in the last decade have leveled off or actually be cooling, may also be in doubt given that the effect is based on the month with the smallest data set and greatest uncertainty (see that thread). The third leg, which I believed the wiser of skeptics would turn to, remained as to whether any of the warming, past, present or future, was anthropogenic - I expressed my own agnostic belief and my openness to further study on that matter. I did note, however, that a one-legged stool is also known as a shaft and perhaps skeptics should be careful in their continued insistence on perching themselves upon it.
That thread obviously became a lot less fun for the skeptics and seems to have faded from view on the forum. My hope was that its fading signal an end to: presenting moot issues about e-mails and lost papers of other scientists; local weather reporting of the latest snowstorm that disproves the works of hundreds of scientists and thousands of research projects; and most hopefully, the end to cherry picking base years for "decade of cooling" nonsense. I'd recognized the skeptics’ need to attempt to throw a former member of their merry band, Dr. Mueller, under the bus, but I figured that eventually would die out as well. Certainly, as evident on the "Decade of cooler" thread, their initial pathetic attempts to use statements from Mueller's co-project leader, Dr. Curry, as a wedge proved more useful in exhibiting the skeptics’ "megaphone" use of the Internet to transmit false or misleading information over the Internet than it did in meeting their objective to dispute the BEST findings.
Since then, little has changed in real science world. There has been no credible refuting of the BEST findings. However, as reflected in the many new threads here, we have certainly gotten back to the entire nonsense megaphone shouting about lost papers and e-mails, local weather reports, cherry-picking start dates to prove cooling, and most of all, attempts to discredit people rather than the science.
I've held my tongue (or more accurately, my keyboard) for some time as this forum has slipped back into the pattern. We are now not only back to the above but also back to calling climate scientist pathetic and spewing garbage - that they should be ashamed for their enticing mobs with pitchforks.
Until someone here deals with the findings of the BEST project (and in a rational, logical manner that doesn’t' rely on trying to discredit the people involved or taking 3rd hand reporting of misquotes or any of the other tricks so evident to date on these climate-related threads), then what they claim as being those negative attributes of climate scientists is what is called in psychology a "projection of themselves onto the other.” Look it up.
I'm not really interested in further displays of cognitive dissonance on this topic. I'm here to learn about trading markets from experts (and that certainly includes from some of those who are most skeptical about this off-topic), but really at some point, one needs to respond to the stink of the pile getting higher and deeper once again on a forum that otherwise deserves considerable respect.
If, rather than provide more gibberish, you can actually take on the BEST, then do it. If you can't, maybe you should consider that other alternative to “putting up” .... at least on this topic.