This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.

So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?

We could be there 50 years and still have no hope of stabilizing the situation (maybe if we just installed another dictator like Saddam). Stabilizing is not something we can impose but is something they'll have to work out internally.

The middle class has been fading ever since Reagan was President. It's a product of supply side economics and the emphasis on the wealthy and the demonization of unions. The rich keep getting richer leaving less money available for the rest of us.

Ah... You apparently believe that climate scientists are "cooking" the numbers for nefarious reasons. The reasons and methods for the adjustments are all out in the open although it takes some scientific knowledge to understand them. Here is an explanation from Berkeley Earth about their data set and filtering. Everything they do there is out in the open.

So I await your scientifically based reasons not to accept the current adjusted temperature data sets.

No one has done that and even if you took the raw unadjusted data and used that the results wouldn't be much different than using adjusted data.

If you think they're trying to take your money now just wait til you have to pay the cost of adapting to global warming.

Actually the next ice age is indefinitely postponed until CO2 levels drop below about 250 ppm again.

Because news organizations think the error bars are too confusing for regular people. They're probably right. But the probabilities of 2014 being the hottest year were mentioned prominently in the joint NOAA/NASA press conference on the subject. Here are the graphics from that press conference. See page 5.

What does that have to do with anything I wrote.

Maybe there is a correlation with temperature and lightening but where is the causation and what way does it flow? My guess would be since warming causes more atmospheric water vapor that could lead to more lightening.

There is far more "fiddling" done just to produce the satellite temperature data than there is to produce the surface temperature data. In the first place satellites don't measure temperature directly. Instead they measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules which serve as a proxy for temperatures in blobs of the atmosphere above the surface. They have to be adjusted for things like orbital decay, estimated sensor drift, changes in the time of observation and to account for things like clouds and high elevations (the Himalayas). Only then can they derive a temperature from the satellites.

That may be true in the sense that you can't instantaneously measure the temperature of every square Planck length of area on the surface of the Earth. But by choosing a representative sample of stations around the world and consistently deriving an average temperature you can get an idea of how temperature is changing over time which is what we really care about.

Maybe so but that reboot process is going to take a while and be unpleasant for everybody (except maybe masochists). It might also mean a significant drop in world population.

Well, there have been science fiction stories about intelligent beings existing in/as plasma. Maybe we can figure that out.

Well, first of all "climate change" is a far older term than "global warming". Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" in 1958. The terms are used interchangeably.

The rest of your post is just hyperbolic.

I imagine you're giggling a lot more about the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are a major factor in Earth's climate than I am about penicillin.

Mann did disclose the source of his funding. That's the issue here, Soon didn't. Anything you need to know about his research is in his published work and that's what he should be judged on. Anything else is irrelevant.