Bellcurve, we could all list our achievements in life as reaon to justify our point of view. Using your qualifications as justification for being right is your first big mistake. And of course, you must realise that your thinking has taken you to the point where you are in life as we type. Only you know what level of achievement you have reached in the book of life.
Humility has nothing to do with accepting another point of view. It is only a point of view at best. It can be accepted that your point of view is different or even diametrically opposed, but it is still not necessarily fact. Facts are facts, and the trouble is what some claim as facts are indeed not facts, but they will argue all day as to their belief. Most of climate science is not based on fact, but unproven theories and incomplete data sets.
Please feel free to list the predictions and or models that have been accurate to date.
BTW, your argument re mars etc is invalid. The reversal of data sets shows a complete lack of rigour. It is not only the reversal but there are other areas of code that are apparently wrong as well. It is the use of that reversed data that is important and the conclusions derived from it. The ramifications could be huge. If you were modelling SST from the antarctic would you want to be using data from the arctic?
The fact that the agencies have not picked it up means they are not checking their work properly. The fact that average joes can find these mistakes is shameful.
Further the implication is, if this is wrong, what else is wrong. What else haven't they checked.!!.
