CO2 smashing extreme weather records, page-2163

Mjp2, allow me to repeat what I said first up with myconversation (Post #: 39893290) with you on this.
I said:
"Notwithstanding the IPCC's change of heart, the AGW hypothesis is now apolitical football which creates its own bias and carries politicalconsequences over time. But the fundamental flaw in the AGW hypothesis researchis the contentious climate modelling and the adjustment down over time of whattemperature rise follows increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. There are of coursejust too many avenues for the AGW modelling to fall down and this modelling hasbeen conflicted since the 1980's. But,if you are a scientist close to the centre of the AGW hypothesis regime, themost troubling thing is the awkward changes to the data and of course all thatfollows."

I know now I have almost repeated the last sentence (above in bold) here in mypost just before this: "As aresearcher how comfortable would you present your analysis with datasets likethis?" The BOM's datasets are affected in the cooling directionsince I doubt they would want to put limits on a record high temperature. They were found out because one person did the checks and prosecuted her casefor correction. I opine that datasets around the world are likewisetainted on the very narrow-mindedness that ran the BOM agenda. It is disquieting thatproper science is voided by a cohort determined to break trust in a democraticsociety. This is a further poke in the eye for the AGW hypothesis and isakin to our cricketers supposedly joining world ranks in tampering with theball. We all thought it wouldn't happen in Australia.

So call it what you will, but I ask why do the proponents of AGW lose theirmoral compass so readily? Perhaps and I only say this in jest, they areoil companies in disguise.