RE:RE:RE:RE:Seriously what is this name?As a scientist I can tell you both sides lie or at least present selective facts and obfuscate the message to get their agenda accross. The only constant is change. Temperature data records we have is spotty and unreliable at best. The data was actually tweaked to "resolve" issues but this should never be done in science . If you have garbage data you don't use it period! The data we hear about record average temperature in the media has one big component missing and that is the error (no % error and no error bar on graphs) is never reported with that xy.zv7C reading (insert whatever number for each letter this is just for illustration) . If a student did that in a lab experiment that is an automatic F. the other problem is that the second significant figure after the decimal should not even be there. That is a product of averaging data but the product should neven have more sig figs than the least reliable data and that is recorded to only one sig fig after the decimal point. In fact some of the historical data has such bad accuracy that you can only have the error is in the +/- 0.5C range (mercury vs alcohol thermometers vs early digital). Worst of all is that geological data we have from extrapolation of indirect other data does not have the granularity to tell us if there were other fast temperature increases or decreases in the geological past. So when the media states that the rate of rise in temperature we are experiencing has never been experienced in the earth's past that is a lie beause frankly we just dont know and that is not something that should be stated as a fact because absence of knowledge does not equal to proof of absence of past rapid temperature change rates. I could go on.... But the takeaway is both sides seem to have an agenda. Don;t fall for either one.