[boris]

"I see a whole lot of peaks and troughs in those graphs. Kind of hard to create a linear best-fit line with it."

Yeah. They used to include the computer predictions on the same graphs but I guess the climate-change mafia made them take it off.

Another point: show me 10,000 years of high-quality, refereed, corroborated (more than one source) of temperature data, and then we can begin to have a debate about whether or not there is warming.

70 years or 700 years means nothing. A human liftime means nothing. We are mayflies in terms of the time scales that climate moves in; the height of hubris to think we can extract any meaningful data in even 100 years of data.

--Boris

[Reeses]

then we can begin to have a debate about whether or not there is warming.

If we agree with them that there is warming then we can lay them off, their work is done. After spending $100 billion on scientists to detect a 0.1 degree increase enough is enough. I'd rather spend future money on a) what temperature do we want? and b) what technologies can we use to set that temperature? A Luddite approach to our environment is silly. It could be we should be giving tax breaks to factories to produce more CO2, not less.