re: #321 b_sharp

Andrew Bolt has been known to fudge and/or misunderstand data to fit his bias.

And the same can’t be said by whole departments at East Anglia given the 2009 scandal? And I would include the department that, after an inquiry, gave everyone a clean bill of health, even one of the main guys who voluntarily and autonomously resigned when the scandal broke? This is the main embarrassment with which you guys have to deal, and the one that awakened so many scientists to the controversy and drove many of them into the fray, studying the issue on their own dime.

Now beyond this, I’m ready to see some other analysis of satellite data that tracks the IPCC predictions. I’m truly open to persuasion on this. But you have to realize that with so many high-powered academics armed with data, scientific ability, and motivation arrayed against you, I’m not going to aim any bias against them like you guys do.