Thanks for the great (pun intended) post. smile I'll have some more questions later, but for now I need a clarification.

Which research are you talking about when you say:
"Now the research is deeply flawed and it is my view it should not have been published or passed peer review. It should not have passed the professor's oversight. But it did and it forms a major plank to the global warming arguments...."

...and this also? "...discussion with the mentor of the author of the article in question and it was a very pleasant discussion over many many months about problems with Surface Air Temperature collection."

Is it the research with the "LULC" info, or some of the Royal Society stuff? (i'm thinking LULC, but just want to be sure).

I'd appreciate a link to the thread you refer to:
"You might have missed the post I did on this particular research."

I'd like to ask you about the CO2 "evidence" too, but first I need to get a good question. I agree it is hard to focus in on a narrow enough question so that the argument doesn't devolve into "sides."

Quote:
I have attempted several times to have the Wiki entries modified, often in very small details relating to global warming..." -RicS


hahaha...that's something I've only "dreamed" about at this point.

~Later
~~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.