If it was true, people would not lie about it and fix the numbers to try and prove it.
“If it was true, people would not lie about it and fix the numbers to try and prove it.”
The best argument against is the raw temp data:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2232622/posts
If 89% of the surface stations measuring temperature are in error, then there is no basis whatsoever to say whether the earth is cooling, warming, or remaining constant, let alone conclude that warming or cooling is ‘bad’ for the planet.
You undercut all the BS by going to the raw data. They simply don’t know what the temperatures are and they have to know that before they plug that bad data into their bad computer models.
It’s the classic effort to make data conform to an already biased pre-conclusion - iow, the _exact opposite_ of science and the scientific method.