>The problem is, that people force their viewpoint through to suggest there is no "assumption", but only fact.
>
>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.
>
>I have been following this thread and I agree with everything you have been saying. Now I want to know who you are and what you have done with the real Walter Meester? ;)

We locked him up in a windmill, by putting a wooden shoe as a wedge to block the door. He has a vast supply of bread and gouda cheese for the winter and have disabled all television channels except Fox News. Do not expect him to be back before spring when the wooden shoe has been eaten away by the black rats.