If your data can be used to support conclusions other than your own that's a feature rather than a bug and you have decide which you value more, scientific truth or your political objectives.
The data CAN'T be used to support other than conclusions. The people making these claims are LYING. David Rose is holding up data, saying something completely opposite to what the data says, and then trusting that "holding data" gives him an air of legitimacy, that the average person won't bother to check beyond what is being claimed. The data is clear.
People like David Rose and others out there pushing the denial viewpoint are LYING. They are lying liars that lie.
Instead of trying to sell me your bridge, you might just want to get your money back from the AGW denial camp that sold it to you in the first place.
no subject
The data CAN'T be used to support other than conclusions. The people making these claims are LYING. David Rose is holding up data, saying something completely opposite to what the data says, and then trusting that "holding data" gives him an air of legitimacy, that the average person won't bother to check beyond what is being claimed. The data is clear.
People like David Rose and others out there pushing the denial viewpoint are LYING. They are lying liars that lie.
Instead of trying to sell me your bridge, you might just want to get your money back from the AGW denial camp that sold it to you in the first place.