|
Absolutely, so do I. I'm glad we agree on that. What I suspect we don't agree on is where those pseudo-scientists lie. The science of AGW is not pseudo-. It is hard physics. But 100% of the anti-AGW soi-disant 'science' I have come across, in this forum and elsewhere, is non-proven conjecture (ie not science), or wishful thinking (ie not science), or paranoiac anti-everybody else (ie not science)
Not really, I'm afraid. But in any case, what's the difference?
Sorry, but that's just cobblers. The 'basic maths' is trends: it makes no bl**dy difference where you get your data, so long as you compare like-with-like over time, and your allegations are not implying that they don't. If the Sahara's getting hotter, that's warming. If runway 28R is hotter in 2008 than it was in 1998, that's warming. I simply don't see your point.How do you know? How do you know that the sites they dropped wouldn't show an even greater warming? If you drop data, for whatever reason, then it's dropped, and you cannot draw any inference from it. Unless of course you have a growing paranoia to feed.
See above
Source? More importantly, to take your own question, why do they do it? What exactly do you think the world's science community is trying to do which is so important that they must keep the world's population, apart from incisive thinkers with a true grasp of reality, such as yourself, in the dark?I agree, but for quite opposite reasons to yours. |
|