I hinted the information might be out there... If you care, that's enough. We don't live in the age where someone has to put a list of citations with their post. If you think they're wrong see what they're reading and see why they think what they do.
There are still plenty of real scientists doing work and they put a lot of the information on the Internet -- unfortunately, they don't live anywhere in the USA. That is applicable toward a number of fields, BTW, not just "climate change" nonsense, but also psychology and other medical fields. In the USA, the academic powers that be have given up science for politics or religion. So, yes, I generally will immediately seek contrary information to their claims -- because I don't believe a damn thing they say unless other sources back them up. There are about 20 "academic research" organizations that just rubber stamp whatever nonsense NOAA or NASA put out and tow the political line. Don't blame me for having an issue with that, anyone truly rational should. Realize also that if climate change is complete bull these guys lose a lot of money. It's not so much that they're into the truth, but that they're into the funding. Just Occam's Razor in effect here... I have nothing to gain either way by hinting that they're not presenting the whole story, so think whatever you want. These are the same guys that said the ice caps are melting, that we'd be in a desert in the middle of the country by now, and that low-lying areas at the coast would be submerged. They were wrong on all that -- why am I supposed to trust another damn thing coming out of their mouths? Citations or not, it's just absurd to take them at their word for anything.
NOAA, especially, has been going back and "refactoring" their historical temp data and other such nonsense for awhile. We have copies of data before 1970, and we know what those numbers are -- they are not the numbers they publish. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's just bull**** is what it is.
