ClimateGate, There IS Substantial Evidence Of AGW, NOT!

A great sypopsys of the "denier" arguments...found in volokhconspiracy.com about halfway down.

schizuki says:

Rather than make an open and honest argument that, despite persistent uncertainties, there is substantial theoretical and empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to a gradual warming

Really? Where? Because all of the “evidence” I’ve seen has been suspect. Do you have a link to any of this “substantial theoretical and empirical evidence”?

The argument always goes like this:

“Sure, the Hockey Stick was shown to be fraudulent, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, James Hansen’s NASA climate data was shown to be corrupt, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, temperature tracking stations were shown to have had air-conditioning exhausts installed right next to them, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, East Anglia CRU is the most influential player in Global Warming research and policy formulation, and has been exposed as a cabal of data-cookers and debate-squelchers, but there is still plenty of other substantial theoretical and empirical evidence.”

“Sure, he hit me a few times, but he’s really a sweet guy when he’s not drinking.”

Quote