The data isn't faked. The data is 1) incomplete, and 2) used to power mathematical models that make predictions about what the weather, ie, global temperature, may do. I believe the hottest year on record in modern times is something like 1932. And yes, the 1990's were hotter than average (in the modern era), but the trend for the last decade has been cooler than average. And glaciation, followed by melting of glaciers is, historically, very common. And yes, some glaciers are receding, melting, and falling off into the ocean -- others are growing (those don't get much press). And, for example, the ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro is "melting", but it is because, I have read, that temperatures and humidity in the costal regions are decreasing and there is less snow than there was in years of warmer, more humid weather. And, I have read, that tree ring data that was used to infer temperature in years past was 1) taken selectively from only a very few large trees that seemed to "fit" what the researchers wanted to find, and 2) isn't a reliable way to correlate with temperature data in the modern era, for years when, historically, the temperature is known. And finally, an increase in average temperature increases the atmospheric CO2 levels by two well known mechanisms -- decomposition of biomass, and dissolution of CO2 from cold ocean water.
Fake data? Maybe, in some instances. Fake is like using Photoshop to melt the polar ice caps and add hurricanes to the equatorial regions of the Earth and cover most of Florida and all of Cuba under water, as on the cover of Algore's book. Fraudulent is like listing thousands of scientists names who "support" the UN's conclusions on man-made global warming, many of whom submitted data and opinions that did not support the politicians conclusions, and some of whom literally had to sue the UN to have their names removed from the list of the "vast majority" of scientists who supported the conclusion. The list, by the way, included every scientist who contributed any data, all the research assistants, clericals, and quite a few bureaucrats who were lumped in to the "scientist" category, and all were listed as contributing to and therefor "supporting" the final conclusion drawn by the UN committee on climate change or what ever it is called, irrespective of their individual positions. Manipulated, misrepresented, and misinterpreted data is all too common, though, as any one with half a scientific brain knows. And anyone who claims to be a scientist and who says "it is known for a fact, there can be no debate . . ." is, like Algore, an idiot.
What I am saying is that the data is 1) incomplete, and as far as known accuracy, available only for a relatively short period. Even that data in many cases is questionable, because of the way it was gathered. 2) the mathematical modeling used to manipulate the data that are available and make predictions are demonstrably inaccurate. 3) Government funding has been hugely skewed to support researchers and research projects with a political agenda -- AGW. And the political fall out of AGW and "green" economy is primarily the "green" that Algore and companies like GE and other politically correct businesses stand to make -- at your expense and mine.
No one, I think, disputes the process of climate change. Any idiot with even a rudimentary understanding of geology knows that there have been huge changes in the Earth's climate, some of it occurring in very short (geologically speaking) periods of time. But man-made global warming, AGW, is only an hypothesis -- a scientifically unproven theory, and a theory supported by poor science and a political agenda as best I can determine. Character assassinations of those with dissenting opinions is a common tactic by the radical left environmentalist. God knows, what motive would I have for wanting to see the Earth destroyed? None. But it is my considered opinion, based on the history I know, that it is politicians and power-seekers who pose a far greater threat to mankind than the weather for the next 100 years. And I am pretty darned sure of that.
Just for fun, read Michael Creighton's "State of Fear" sometime, including the forward and epilog.
Later.
