No one is accusing you of passing off alarmist BS, but you do come across as someone who swallows the official line, or who's accepting of a so-called consensus. And sorry to say this, but the official line has been (for too long now) that we are heading for catastrophic warming, and that we need to do something about it right now.
I disagree on both points. I don't think we are facing the end of the world, and I do believe we have the benefit of time to reassess the initial alarmism - which, perhaps warranted at the time - has now been shown, from measured temperature observations, highly premature and unnecessary. But that alarmism has been maintained, because of too many vested interests. Climate has become an industry, a juggernaut.
It's that simple. I don't discredit parts of climate science because of personal perceptions; I discredit them because they are not science. For example, I have already pointed out the improbability of a 3 degree, let alone a 4 degree rise by 2100 - that is merely derived from computer modelling (just one of many outcomes) yet that projection is still the official line, and scientists in the main are prevented from speaking out, because they are hopelessly compromised.
When someone posts a graph showing a steeply rising trend to 2040 of temperature extremes ratios, when in the last 20 years there is nothing to suggest it will continue to rise, then I'll call that out as misleading and highly unscientific. That's not a personal perception; it's there for all to see.
Yet you seem to have an issue with me pointing these out, calling it cherry-picking.
Bergus, if you yourself took a more independent line of thinking, you'd soon realise from your reading what is alarmism, what is solid science, what is grey-area science, what is opinion, what is politics, what is special-interest group thinking, what is journalism etc. etc.
