Well NOAA did get caught fudging data before, although when that data supported the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" position not many of your fellow scientists called them out on that....I mean really why would they there's grant money to be had and one never wants to look like a "denier" when in the scientific community now do they?

NOAA has been caught using bad data before and they've been called out on it by a guy I'm sure you hate with every fiber of your being, Anthony Watts. His research...yes scoff at it if you will....but it made NOAA change up their hottest years and months. Mr. Watts found that several weather stations are NOT reporting data and NOAA was estimating temperatures for those stations....not certain you'd call that good data to base any kind of model on.

I'm a pragmatic person, I am so instead of getting all insane about humans destroying the Earth I just take a deep breath, look at Earth's history and relax. The Earth has had hot times and cold times and well before the Industrial Revolution ever thought of happening. It's had times where CO2 has been a bigger portion of our atmosphere and life has thrived and there have been times with little CO2 in the atmosphere and it was hard times for living things to survive. Again even the "Don of Global Warming" Dr. Revell had his doubts about how much CO2 affected the climate.

NOAA has admitted to a very long pause in warming, they are adamant that it doesn't change their predictions of gloom and doom....fine they want to believe it, their data says it, fine cool go ahead knock yourselves out. But if we're already doomed (and from what most alarmists say we are) then don't tax the shit out of me for no reason, don't tell me what car I can drive, and don't make life in general more difficult and more expensive. Humans are responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions which make up a smidgen of the 0.03-0.04% of CO2 that makes up a teeny tiny little speck of the Earth's climate....so again what is the end game here? Do you guys want humans to produce 0% of the CO2 emissions That would mean everyone would have to stop exhaling or do we want to cut that CO2 emission level down to a "reasonable level" which begs the question "What's a reasonable level"? 3.0% 2.5%? 2.0%?

And then allow me to ask...since you are a man of science and you know the dangers waiting for man in the very near future due to this unholy Anthropogenic Global Warming...what prey tell does YOUR carbon footprint look like? Shrank that down have you? Knowing what you know, surely you must have....I mean if not we're all doomed.