what the hell?!?!?
pointing out the flaws in climate science is not good enough for unfunded skeptics? they have to come up with a compelling alternative explanation for everything first before we should listen to their ideas?
Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.
Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)
can I give you an example? Mann07 or 08 was a reworking of the hockeystick. It used sediment cores that were known to be contaminated by agriculture in the 20th century. it actually gave a reversed hockeystick shape. Mann's algorithm then turned it upsidedown to match other data. when this preposterous mistake was exposed Mann not only refused to acknowledge it as a mistake but continued using it in further projects. this is the sort of 'rock solid' evidence that we are supposed to credibly accept.
Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?
So, can we call you Bill O'Reilly now? Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy according to Bill. Bill, meet Trakar a fellow traveller....