You have no clue how much I've watched this issue, or what sources I use. (Likewise, I could presumptively tell you to stop reading Anthony Watts blog entries.) I'm not here to debate AGW or sway anyone. You've obviously made up your mind. I haven't, but I do know it's disingenuous to paint a whole research community with a broad brush of dishonesty. Any discussion of AGW that involves discussing politics, religion, jobs, costs, or the motives of others isn't worth having.
Disingenuous? This from the person who writes
"I don't pretend to know the science behind it all, but I'll put my trust in the people with the education, knowledge, and dedication to collect and analyze the data," and then tries to imply he has a depth of knowledge on the subject and that others may not?
I can assure you I'm not being disingenuous. I believe what I wrote wholeheartedly and can back it up. Are there some good, honest, climate scientists, yes, of course. However, for many of the highest profile, the case for total disregard for the scientific method, if not outright scientific fraud, is prima facie.
