If I may ask, it seems as though everyone here but me are absolutely CONVINCED that AGW is happening, and nothing can be done. Has anyone else done any objective studies from both Raw and Altered data, and compared the 2 side by side? It just seems like everyone here knows for fact, when in reality, no one knows what will happen the next 10 to 100 years. I don't know if the Earth will be a fireball or snowball, but I am certain that at the current trend, we've been in a decline over the past 14 years, and thats reading the RAW data. could someone here at least do some studies without any political motivation, just as a pure objective standpoint, and also do their studies? I mean, it IS quite frustrating that all of you blame me as being a denialist, when I've seem to be the ONLY objective one in this whole debate. Everyone else seems to assume that we are all burning up, and that we are doomed, without even considering studying the skeptical viewpoint of the "debate". I mean, I can be fine with not convincing, or lat least opening your minds to the skeptical viewpoint, but to flat out deny the other evidence is just messed up. I'll leave the debate with these last words, but I just want to ask you all to consider studying the viewpoints of the skeptics before coming in calling me a denier. That just starts a whole fight, and I don't even want to get into that. I am a SKEPTIC, which is far different from outright denying.
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!
GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!