Sorry. You just lost me there. You're responding to an article that says things like
Richard Black wrote: In some circles, every single -gate "relevation" has been followed by a ritualised fanfare claiming that the picture of climate warming through rising greenhouse gases concentrations has now been "fatally undermined", or some similar phrase.
Journalists with an eye for old-fashioned concepts such as balance, like Fred Pearce, are careful to avoid making that conclusion.
and that shows a graph that compares the contentious Chinese data with later, corroborated data. A graph that is to all intents and purposes, identical.
But you're responding as if it supports your argument.
It doesn't. It does exactly the opposite.
|