Quote Originally Posted by Baloo View Post
Just on this point, I believe they were exonerated weren't they following several enquiries?
There was one particular graph they used to show a huge plateau of global warming since the mid fifties and took it back over 800 years showing everything level, conveniently omitting the big spike in temperatures in the dark ages (not as high but high enough) because it didn't suit their argument.
When questioned they said they left it out because it wasn't relevant to the argument. But I'm sure they found a way to wriggle out of it.
The thing is because of that it led people to question and disbelieve all the other things they did that were probably for the most part quite accurate.