Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I'm not a climate scientist. What I did was quote some scientists who've made it clear that Cook misrepresented them by fraudulently using their Papers as an endorsement of anthropogenic global warming. It would appear that you believe a meaningless sarcastic jab is a good substitute for actually rebutting the points I've posted. And that would be called the losing end.

Nice try, but "not knowing how untrustworthy a source is" is not a reason to trust that source.

Well, you started by saying "no reliable climatecdata has ever been collected", and now you're saying that you don't know whether reliable climate data has ever been collected. QED

Public anxiety about climate change in Britain is at its highest level in 15 years, poll finds
By Sally Guyoncourt
Wednesday, 21st August 2019

Climate change has become a national cause for concern with almost three in four people now believing Britain is already feeling its effects, a poll has revealed.

The Ipsos Mori survey found 85 per cent of Britons were worried about climate change with more than half (52 per cent) 'very concerned'.

This is the highest level of anxiety about the topic recorded since Ipsos Mori began tracking in 2005.

Concern about climate change was running at 82 per cent in 2005 but declined to a low-point of 60 per cent by 2013.

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-national-concern-poll-495401

The fact that it is untrustworthy makes it unreliable.

Spouting tautological drivel...Exhibit C.

The fact that you have trust issues makes you unreliable, as a pananoiacs tend to be unreliable. The science of climate change remains strong and reliable irrespective of your trust issues.

That is incorrect. There is nothing unreliable about me refusing to accept unreliable data.

"Science" based on unreliable data is anything but strong.

Progressives would like it if they could endlessly repeat falsehoods without anyone countering with the truth.

Which is why your take is very weak: it's only based on paranoid thinking à la "all plumbers screw your wife because one plumber screwed your wife".

You cannot point to one instance of a plumber screwing Oralloy’s wife.

There is nothing weak about refusing to accept unreliable data.

A weak person would give in to this leftist pressure to ignore reality and accept their ideology.

No thank you.

It would be quite a surprise if he was even married.

As I said: there's nothing I can do for your trust issues. You dump science at your expense.

But this chatty character demonstrates profound weakness repeatedly by not being able to show that any of the data is unreliable.

You cannot point to one example of Oralloy being a chatty character.

Whether I'm single or married (or any relationship status in between), it won't change the reality that I'm right and you're wrong.

What is it about leftists that they always try to find out information about other people's personal lives?

I mean, I know that leftists can't rely on facts to support their arguments, but that just means that leftists should keep quiet and let better-informed people do all of the talking.

"Not being gullible" is hardly a trust issue.



Not when the "science" is based on bad data.

Wrong again. I've repeatedly provided evidence of a scientific journal suppressing data that conflicts with the leftist narrative.

Biased data is unreliable data.

o. What you have done is made questionable allegations and evidence-free implications about why one shaky article which drew conclusions that further research diksagreed with was tuned down for ppublication, from which with no evidence you reject data from which tenuous foundation you reject data from hundreds of researchers in a variety of fields with a multitude of different ways to get that data, with no connection from the journal in the first place, You have never had a case here.