Don't give me graphs produced by the same corrupt researchers
who have given us the massively flawed "science". That would be like me, pointing to the "fact" that, if a certain losing football team, where to have some of the best football players from the other football teams, that, it would probably be the best or one of the best teams out there. Graphs from the faux science are not credible, and are completely worthless.
The IPCC group itself is part of the agenda to try to convince people that, global warming is being caused by man. But, the measurements and science are flawed and therefore, the whole "science" falls apart.
Global warming periods are a fact of climate change, and so are cooling periods. The planet has had warming periods in the past, before man had any kind of effect on the conditions of the planet. Climate happens, and the effect from human consumption is irrelevant to the greater causes that occur naturally. Greenland was named so because, global warming in the medieval times was such that, what is now essentially a frozen land, was warm enough back then to actually turn the land to lush greenery. And, man didn't have the large factories or SUVs or AC/Heat systems to effect nature back then.
You are again committing the same mistakes that the researchers and global warming shysters have been doing for the last several decades, and that is that, you are conveniently picking and choosing the data and "facts" that fit your desired "global warming" indicators.
Your methods and those of the global warming junk scientists aren't any different, and you're just as much a part of the junk science agenda as they are.
Global warming "science" is NOT POSSIBLE, because, there is no way that any researcher or scientist can develop a model that can take into consideration the many millions of variables that go into the entire climate system of the planet. But, it's not just about the variables or the faulty models; it's about the agenda, which is to create a narrative that, no matter what the opposing data and research might say, is always to try to convince the people that, the "science" is settled and unquestionable and without faults. But, no real scientist would ever do that kind of science and still maintain any kind of credibility with the "real scientific community". Junk science can never stand up to scrutiny, and global warming has failed that test miserably, time and again.
