Darwin's hypothesis does not rest upon equations, but rather observation and supposition. I suspect you know this already, but I wanted to clarify this for the rabble.
I do not doubt the basic hypothesis of evolution -- that life forms evolve, but the dynamism of any organism's genetic code, combined with recent and reputable observation, does point to a better theory which is far more, how do I say, Lamarckian in nature.
Unlike simply noting the similarities and differences between certain populations in various stages of isolation and drawing conclusions as to the mechanism by which those variations have arisen, the process of measuring, experimenting, observing, predicting and re-confirming, say, how phenotype alterations write themselves into the genotype is how real science occurs.
If you throw out observations because they do not conform to your hoped for outcomes is not real science.
Thus; back to the AGW topic, when half of the Russian temp data is thrown out because it fails to demonstrate the hoped-for warming of IPCC "scienticians", we see bad science.
Dogma is a crutch for small minds - in any field.
I kind of agree. I have been reading some interesting stuff, try this http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html it is on how toxo can affect behavior.
Thus; back to the AGW topic, when half of the Russian temp data is thrown out because it fails to demonstrate the hoped-for warming of IPCC "scienticians", we see bad science.
The New Zealand and Australian adjustments are even more clear cut. It is becoming very clear that Jones et al cherry picked their sources, added heat to the UHI and cooled the past. That is how they created the hockey stick.
I was one of the people who submitted a FOI to HADRCUT.