Undermining Their Own Argument

Nice job (alleged) AGW "scientists".

"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."

Is it not as easy to do the same with (alleged) AGW? Taking 100 years of questionable data, of which only 50 can be argued to be "good" (i.e. worldwide), coupled with questionable statistical techniques and equally questionable data sources in a planet reputed to be billions of years old seems to me to be "cherry picking" as well.

(John) Christy (director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) added, however: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."

But I'm guessing that if you are reading this, you want to know. Go do your own research. You will see most of the (alleged) AGW believers are using fear, while most of the skeptics use fact.

But hey...you decide.