Yes Andrew, I'm sure you believe what you wrote. Typically you present absolute statements like "The notion that the peer review process is flawed and corrupt regarding climate change is false." Of course you are not the arbiter of what is true and what is false. May I ask, have you examined all the information on this subject with an objective eye, or did you find something that supported your ideology and declare it to be the authority on the subject?
As far as global temps, there are two data sets on this. One is satallite data which clearly shows a cooling trend. The other is NOAA ground collection stations that show an increase. AGW advocates try to make the claim that the ground stations should be the standard. This is rediculous for a number of reasons. One being the hypothesis itself. AGW hypothesis says the solar radiation reflects off the surface of the earth and then is trapped by greenhouse gases in the statosphere. Clearly, that is where the warming should first be detected. Satellites measure that part of the earth. Second ground stations are effected by heat island effect, machinery like air conditioners, and politics. For instance, all ground reporting stations in Siberia have been shut down since the colapse of the Soviet Union. What effect do you think the ellimination of Siberian data has on the overall average? So you see, when you hear that the last 10 years are the hottest on record, you are being fed cherry picked information from an entity with an agenda. A cursory objective unbiased look will clearly show that it isn't that cut and dry. AGW may be a valid hypothesis or not, that point has not yet been established, the one clear thing we can say, is that it isn't even close to rising to the level of a theory yet.
