Do alarmism and historical revision (e.g., eliminating the MWP from the climate history) create skeptics?

Question

Do alarmism and historical revision (e.g., eliminating the MWP from the climate history) create skeptics?

Answer 1

Yes,not just from the layman's point of view either.From what I understood Mann was determine to use bad data.That created a stir from colleges in the field.Other studies have also gone south.Trying to synchronize the two Hemispheres failed,along with some modeling of CO2 in certain locals.Some land based stations are/were under dispute,along with satellite orbital decay.They might have a solid history on techniques,but analytically they have issues...maybe for a reason?

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climat...

Answer 2

Researching the great hockey stick debate (debacle) was instrumental in forming my position on GW and AGW.  M Mann, a lead author of the IPCC assessment reports was thoroughly discredited.

This led me to question the actions of the IPCC more generally.  The devaluation of science by the IPCC tells the real story here.

Actions of IPCC lead author Trenberth made me understand that the IPCC is totally political, and not scientific.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promet...

The IPCC's "PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION REVIEW ACCEPTANCE ADOPTION APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS" was the final straw.

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

What was that?  Change the "data" part of the report to match the "conclusion" part!!!  Yes, you read correctly.  The conclusion need not reflect the science because we will change the data so it matches. It's here on page 4.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/i...

Now why on God's green earth would I believe any "fact" found in the report?