So how did you get the idea that I denied any warming from that? I'll tell you...you just made it up. Of course the earth warms...and the earth cools...Humans are not causing it and there isn't the first piece of empirical evidence that they are.
Anyway, personal insults aside, I'm beginning to find this debate tedious at best.
Of course it's tedious, and its your fault. The best you can do is clap your hands over your ears and shout LA LA LA at the top of your lungs so that you don't have to acknowledge that climate science is, in fact, falsifying data...and that falsified data is diverging further and further every day from observations.
Go ahead, believe the hogwash that is being spread around t he internet.
By your own admission, you aren't qualified to determine what is and isn't hogwash.. Not so with me. I am educated far beyond the high school level and can recognize when altered data does not mesh with observation and I am well qualified to know what that means.
If you want to believe that the scientific organizations are falsifying data, then so be it.
Scientific organizations don't collect data or falsify it...individuals do that...you want to tell me that they don't?
Of course, the reason they would do this is, what again?
Here is a short list of scientists who have been caught falsifying data...
H. Zhong
T. Liu
Haruko Obokata
Raphael B. Stricker
James H. Freisheim
Joachim Boldt
Jan Hendrik Schön
Richard Eastell
Malcolm Pearce
Andrew Jeremy Wakefield
Yoshitaka Fujii
Mart Bax
Jens FörsterJon Sudbø...
And I could literally go on for page after page after page of scientists who were caught falsifying data. Why did any of them do it? According to people who study people who are caught falsifying data, the reasons are specifically as diverse as the people who falsify data, but generally amount to only a few reasons...the primary reason being career pressure. Science is a career driven discipline...publish or perish isn't just a meaningless phrase that people use for fun. Scientists depend heavily on ongoing support and funding for their very survival in the field and the reputation required for that ongoing support and funding depends largely on the publication of high profile papers....papers that get media attention....
Then there is simply the ease with which data might be manipulated or falsified...when the methods or conclusions in a paper can't be experimentally replicated or duplicated, there is little to stop a scientist from fudging to get a desired result which then goes back to reason one....funding, career advancement, etc.
Falsifying data has been happening since science began and there was money to be had for results....how many kingly coins went into the pockets of "scientists" who claimed to be able to transform base metals into gold? Falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing science today...how many papers do you suppose get retracted every year across all branches of science? Look it up some time. To suggest that people don't falsify data...or to even ask why they might do it expresses a degree of ignorance that is frankly, startling. You really must live under a rock and only peek out rarely.
Could it be a conspiracy between government and science? Or do you have another theory?
You are ignorant beyond belief...and literally mired in logical fallacy. Tell me, was it a conspiracy between government and science when John Darsee fabricated data in order to get 16 high profile papers and over 100 abstracts and book chapters published on the topic of cardiology? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Victory Ninvov was caught fabricating data to support the claim that he had created ununoctium, and livermorium? Was it a conspiracy between government and science when Anil Potti fabricated data while employed at Duke University to get a high profile paper published on the topic of personalized genetic screening for cancer?
These are just a few. There are literally thousands upon thousands of cases just like these. Virtually every scientists involved was a member in good standing of one scientific organization or another and received government funding at some level. Are they all part of a giant conspiracy or are they individuals who do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons....greed...the want for more funding...the want to be famous and respected among their peers....the want to stand in that spotlight and bask in the envy of others in their field....the want of tenure, or promotion...or simply more security.
The fact that you sarcastically laugh off the fact that falsification of data is one of the most serious problems facing research science today is startling...the fact that you are blissfully unaware of the problem, I suppose can be laid at your abject ignorance and faith in science. Science isn't some omnipotent thing that is beyond reproach...science is people who are subject to the same wants, envies, insecurities, drives, needs, and temptations as everyone else. Science is full of bad actors and while you may characterize the discovery of falsifications on the internet as hogwash, you might want to know that the fact that all of that research is now on the internet and being examined by people who never subscribed to all of the journals in the past has resulted in more falsification of data being discovered today than at any other time in history...and the numbers of falsified papers being discovered is growing every year as a result of that "hogwash".
You are just plain ignorant. You want to believe what you believe and willfully ignore literal mountains of hard empirical evidence that contradicts what you believe. The description "useful idiot" accurately describes you, and everyone who thinks like you. You believe what you want and have no compunction in spreading the misinformation as far as you can with out question or reservation. Look the term up sometime even if you can't bear to honestly assess yourself.