I have no idea if what you say about systematic data manipulation is true, I suspect not.
The models actually predict that some places will get colder, it seems odd to remove data consistent with the model.
Global Climate change was inserted to replace Global Warming, because for those who cactually look into it, the modelling is that some places will get warmer and some will get colder ... that the NET effect isone of global warming, but that for some the phrase was confusing because if they could find a weather station where it did not occur they would hunker down in denial.
There is no doubt that aspects of the modelling are troubling, and indeed, that components of causality are well challeneged (and seeing that causality is at the core of the argument, that is by no means trivial).
To me, in the end, whether observed reality is a consequence of human activity or not is only barely relevant, as that activity is largely extant, and I have no theories, plans or ideas to suddently make human deliberately less successful for the sake of targeting a particular global temperature, sea level or whatever.
Again, successful species invariably have significant impacts on their environment. I don't think it is something to be ashamed of (the left) or deny (the right). It is entirely expected, natural, and dare I say proper. WE SHOULD AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT. That is what success means.
Still, that we do requires us to understand it, accomadate it, and in the case of serious biblical type stuff, seek to prevent it if we reasonably can (I have seen little to suggest that we can reasonably amend current matters).
| 