<quoted text>Well, you are consistent, José- consistently clueless.
"When ate you..."? Hmmm.
The "exposed emails" mean nothing. Firstly, a "trick" in math or science isn't anything deceptive, it's a way of simplifying or understanding things. Nothing nefarious about it.
"Mike's (Michael E Mann, lead author of the study) trick" was putting modern, measured temperatures together with tree ring data from the past; tree ring width & wood density are proxies for past temps. This was the famous "hockey stick" paper. It was an excellent idea that has been verified many times over by other studies.
Most tree rings widen, & their wood becomes less dense, with higher temps. However, SOME northern trees show a reversal of this pattern; we know from measurements that temps are increasing, but tree right widths are decreasing. This has been called the "divergence problem" in the literature.
Because they were anomalous, Mann et al threw out those data. The email that said "hide the decline" referred to declining tree ring widths.
In their scientific paper, of course, they didn't hide it, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT! They asked other scientists to help figure out why it was happening, & several hypotheses have been proposed.
No less than 6 formal reviews have found NOTHING wrong with the science. More important is the fact that other scientists, using other proxies, have verified Mann et al's original idea. Presuming you're not colorblind, it's easy to see how other studies have confirmed the original. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...
Why didn't Obama sign the Kyoto Protocol? Uh, gee - maybe because the Senate rejected it unanimously? Al Gore doesn't need Obama to get rich, BTW, he's got plenty of money now, not just from the sale of Current TV, but also from getting onto the boards (with stock options) of Google & Apple at just the right time.
Remember, a revenue-neutral carbon tax removes ZERO money from the economy & adds ZERO to the cost of government. It just takes money from high carbon emitters & gives it to low carbon emitters. It stimulates the economy, getting entrepreneurs to use their creativity on renewable energy.
Remember that 8 of the 12 largest companies in the world by revenue are oil companies; 2 are auto manufacturers, one a utility, & the other is WalMart. They ALL have direct financial interests in AGW/CC denial. Careful laws could make the car makers, utility & WalMart more neutral, but the oil companies will always fight it tooth & nail. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global...
There is no (repeat, NO) money in supporting AGW/CC; the money is in denial. I mean DUH. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh8fhMUmU1...
The deniers have almost unimaginable amounts of money to confuse the science, but we must continually speak truth to power. Scientific facts are true no matter how many times you cluelessly deny them, & no matter how much oil money wants them to be false.