If there is one thing that really winds me up it is the blind way in which our politicians have jumped on the "Climate Change" bandwagon. No matter what crap and utter bullshit comes out of the mouths Climate Change lobby our fawning politicians are there lapping it up, haven't they go a mind of their own! What's worse is that they keep stuffing money at the enviro-fascists so they can go and collect some more self serving half truths and distortions.
It is very difficult to get anything resembling a decent debate and hear other arguments. Anyone who is brave enough to put their head above the parapet is dismissed as mad, bad and a RWN. Because of this the skeptic argument tends to be dry and kept in the academic world with people like Bjørn Lomborg fighting the good fight, so I would like to thank The Devil's Kitchen for introducing me to the Climate Skeptic, one of the best skeptic sites I have come across. He writes in an easy, non-scientific way that is easy to follow and I commend the site to everyone who is genuinely interested in the subject.
I won't steal his thunder by repeating it all hear but this article on US temperature over the last century or so is fascinating. To provide you with a teaser, though, let me ask this question:
Scientists have been collecting temperature data from a site for a hundred years and in that time the site had become "urbanised". To account for this change should scientists:
a) Leave the raw data alone or
b) increase the value of the raw data to account for the urbanisation or
c) decrease the value of the raw data to account for the urbanisation?
Have a guess before reading the full article here. And when you have finished that makes ure you go to this article if you didn't pick it up in the article, the sloppiness of the whole process will blow your mind