Global warming is just contrived science to push a political agenda,
and the methods used by the junk "scientists" prove that all the time.
If any science, no matter what field, ever took any of the data, whether the input or the secondary or the resulting data, and massaged it in any way to achieve a desired outcome, then it becomes completely NOT CREDIBLE, and can rightfully be called "junk science". Period!
When an agenda becomes part of the research, and the research is used to advance a cause, then the scientific principle for research has been damaged, and the resulting data or conclusions result in junk. It's the GIGO principle applied to "global warming", but, with global warming "science", there is plenty of real science to dispute the research. In fact, it's impossible to do any real research with "climate", since, there are millions of variables that would have to be studied and there isn't a means to capture all of the data, and there aren't any feasible or credible models to test against, and the results will always be questionable because of the lack of good science behind the research.
Global warming science has as much credibility as astrology.
