[Always Right]

Whether or not you know it, the site from which the article that originated the thread was obtained is an advocacy science site. They find a reference in the literature, and then interpret it as best they can to fit their opinion, which is approximately that anthtropogenic global warming is not a problem because the Earth may have been nearly this warm in the past.

That is too funny. And yet you would never suggest the IPCC is an advocacy group, despite the fact their very name suggests otherwise. The sad fact is most 'science' publications today are advocacy groups especially in this area of global warming.

[cogitator]

And yet you would never suggest the IPCC is an advocacy group, despite the fact their very name suggests otherwise.

I'm most interested in what Working Group I of the IPCC does. Working Groups II and III have socio-political foci, and that makes them more prone to advocacy forces and advocacy positions.

The sad fact is most 'science' publications today are advocacy groups especially in this area of global warming.

Approaching this scientifically, the preponderance of current data analyses indicate an anthropogenic influence on climate. If the journals have a preponderance of papers indicating same, that's not the fault of the journal -- blame the data for being so inconveniently biased.