[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.

[Always Right]

Approaching this scientifically, the preponderance of current data analyses indicate an anthropogenic influence on climate.

I agree, the preponderance of analysis does in fact indicate anthropogenic influence, but the actual data does not. And that is the problem, I see a huge divergence in the data and the analysis.