Philip wrote:Mike, I agree there are many reasons to doubt the accuracy of the temperature record, but then again many of the climate datasets are disputed in one way or another. I think the fact that the CRU record shows the 60-year cycles so clearly argues that it is roughly right, even if the increases in the second half of the 20th century are exaggerated. Nonetheless, even by taking it at face value (as in the graph), it still contains no convincing reasons to accept AGW alarmism.
'Even if', is this a stealthy attempt to inject doubt in to scientific understanding? Isn't that a common way FOX news manages to get it's point across. I'm sorry, but have you evidence the increases in the second half have been exagerrated?