The whole point of peer-review is that you can't just make up figures to fit your theories - your findings have to be repeatable to be taken seriously. If you want to prove your theory (which involves every climatologist being in on some massive conspiracy) you have to go and repeat several times the experiments that have been done to show climate change is happening and show why they don't show climate change if you do find something different.
You claim that scientists are fabricating data to support their claims, but you have none to support yours, yet you think we should take you seriously?
You claim that scientists are fabricating data to support their claims, but you have none to support yours, yet you think we should take you seriously?
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. - J.R.R Tolkien
