I think what is in dispute is the magnitude and direction of the feedback. Notice the letter says catastrophic global warming. Possibly they only disagree with the catastrophic part. The CO2 that is being emitted by itself will only cause about 1C per century of warming, which isn't very catastrophic.

Whatever, if I am having my head beat against the pavement by someone as big as Mr Martin, and I have a gun I shoot, if I have a knife I stab him, failing that I find a rock and bash him upside the head.

Boring!! Well I guess biotech is interesting, but a world without people trying to exceed our "practical limits?" Not to long ago a 4 minute mile was considered a human limit. Going to the moon was definitely outside our "practical limits." Oh well I guess I'm just glad not everyone thinks the same way as you.

Really?

And what decline are they trying to hide? Why the one that shows that their tree ring data doesn't increase after 1950 and they don't know why.

Open your eyes -- go and actually read through some of their emails. Here I've set up a search of the emails for you. Open your mind a bit too while you are at it.

Except as their own email show those scientific facts are anything but. Instead they are statistically massaged to look the way they want them when the base is actually showing things very different.

I doubt it really takes all that much effort now. Originally to set up the system with where they are recording the data, it was probably pricey, but now all they need is the database and so good high end data analysis tools, so figure about $240 K (pure SWAG) a year for analyst and software. That works out to about 20K a month with one month being about your standard ad cycle, add in say $1 per person for a targeted ad campaign, if you make $10 per person that comes in and buys which is low, and you have a 10% response rate to your adds, you come out even if you can identify 20K people to send your ad to.

Obviously these numbers are all guess work, and I'm sure Target and the marketing company have done similar math but with similar results. I can't imagine a business savvy company would do these things without doing the math and determining it was worthwhile.

The decline that is trying to be hidden, is the one from the tree ring proxy data if you continue to use it post about 1950. So they stop using the tree ring proxy data and instead splice on actual temperature readings. In their sample set the tree ring proxy data would go down, which obviously doesn't match the temperature record. This implies that maybe tree ring data is not a good proxy for temperature.

There are other statistical problems with the data they use, but that is one of the most glaring. I know they have reasons why they think the tree ring data declined at that point. But their emails show that they didn't want to display it because they thought the uninformed would jump on it, and reject their entire point because of this discrepancy. To me that unwillingness to defend the issues in their data and instead attempt to just hide it illustrates basic dishonesty.

I think it is the other way around, if you don't believe there is something fishy going on after reading even a small portion of the two sets of released emails then you are not willing to face facts.

you are right I took his 34.2M as the CO2 number incorrectly

Either that or you read the emails of the cabal of scientist banding together on global warming.

I think what he was referring to is not that cars release CO2, but that the CO2 they release is several orders of magnitude less than say coal fired power plants.

The problem with your assertions is that from their own emails we know that these scientists have actively worked to pervert the peer review process therefore nullifying your belief that only published scientists should contribute to the scientific discussion.