They looked like strong hands.
This is irrelevant to my previous point. You claimed that this phantom agency that takes all climate change research is biased and picks and chooses which data to publish because it wants to keep funding for climate change research. I pointed out that there is no lack of funds for scientific research, and how little of it comes from the government. This makes your entire premise invalid. When we needed funding for our study a few years ago, I personally wrote a proposal to the American Psychological Association to get approval ethically, and after that ordeal, they forwarded us a list of possible grants and funding sources we could access. Not a single one was government money. Funding is not the issue.
Originally Posted by TrojanFin
As to my second point, there isn't a need to expand on that. Conflicting data is a part of science, period.
You are purposely ignoring hordes of scientific data because it doesn't fit your ideological narrative...
If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...