>
>And that is largely not the case: The predictions of the future are build out of assumptions on top of other assumptions. Satellite data suggests there is no global warming for about 18 years now (since 1997). How does that marry up with increased CO2 levels since that time? And why do ground observations suggest there is global warming while NASA satellite data suggest stable temperatures? The -so called- facts of global temperatures do no suggest fact here as the two methods do not yield the same results.
>
>My conclusion, perhaps I will be classified as a conspiracy theorist for this, is that possibly the climate industry has become such a big industry that in order to sustain itself it has to bend the truth a bit and cherry pick data and conclusion to let the world think we have a massive environment problem. What could be a bigger threat to the industry than the outcome that it is build on false assumptions?
>
>I would not be surprised if I'm not that far off.

Now I'm really scared. Because I agree with everything you've said, 100%. :)