re: #33 austin_blue

Oh, dear. Please consider the source. NOAA hasn’t responded because they don’t have to. The data is the data. Every time this happens, someone starts a bad data/conspiracy theory on the Net. People without any kind of verifiable and reproducible proof, it should be noted, unlike NOAA’s hard facts. That’s not science.

Apart from his ID stance, he has a pretty good resume overall. Especially in climate science.

Maybe you’re comfortable dismissing his argument out of hand, but I have to keep him in the Maybe category myself.