From the emails affair it would appear that the people who are supposed to be peer reviewing this stuff are not doing a very good job. Let’s look at some of the predictions that have so far not come true.
Global warming alarmists has been around in the late 80's and so far we have passed through so many of the Hansen and Gore's 'we only have 5 years to act' deadlines it is just not worth hearing them again.
Tim Flannery said a Perth and Adelaide would run out of water by 2008.
The Arctic was supposed to be Sea Ice free starting in 2008 and then feel free to pick any year you like now.
The global temp was supposed to keep rising as CO2 rose, it hasn't. And they admit their models can't say why.
The hockey stick graph and the removal of the MVP
That CO2 is a climate driver based on the ice, oh wait no it isn't.
That they can't even build computer models that can back test India's monsoon season, but are confident that CO2 will have an impact on them in the future.
That tropical storms where supposed to get worse (they haven't).
This is just off the top of my head. If I sat down and looked I am sure I could fill pages with the sort of scare tactics that haven't come true but have been widely publish and accepted as fact.
Who is fact checking these people and getting is so wrong? I would suggest that there are some telephone psychics with better track records at guessing than these respected and learned scientists.
Learn to read their stuff with the same grain of salt you look at things that don't support your narrow world view and you might actually be able to argue effectively instead of resorting to calling people conspiracy nuts. And while you may not have intended to say I didn't believe 9/11 you implied that by your ineffectual arguing technique.
