You're grossly underestimating the amount of cumulative data available, and instead focusing on a few questionable findings. Re-stating the metaphor raised earlier, it's like examining the site of a horrific car crash, seeing the steering wheel in tact, and claiming the accident never happened.
Please point to evidence that show tens of thousands of scientists (each working independently) have manipulated data. This is your only claim. Prove it instead of relying on outliers.
Climate science spans countless fields of study:
- climatology
- meteorology
- atmospheric chemistry
- solar physics
- historical climatology
- geophysics
- geology
- oceanography
- glaciology
- paleoclimatology
- ecology
- synthetic biology
- biochemistry
- applied math & computer science
- etc.
each pointing to the same obvious conclusion, that man is negatively impacting our climate. Yet you're ignoring it all, and focusing your attention on thermometers. smh.
Please point to evidence that show tens of thousands of scientists (each working independently) have manipulated data. This is your only claim. Prove it instead of relying on outliers.
Climate science spans countless fields of study:
- climatology
- meteorology
- atmospheric chemistry
- solar physics
- historical climatology
- geophysics
- geology
- oceanography
- glaciology
- paleoclimatology
- ecology
- synthetic biology
- biochemistry
- applied math & computer science
- etc.
each pointing to the same obvious conclusion, that man is negatively impacting our climate. Yet you're ignoring it all, and focusing your attention on thermometers. smh.
Comment