hayesheres a thesis. in a siuttaion where there are only 2 answers, and one of them is correct, if you can prove that one of the answers is not correct, then the other must be the correct one.posing the question does global warming exist? then going off the statements made by the IPCC scientists we cannot prove that the earth is warming and there is a cooling trend then we may safely assume a yes answer is incorrect, and thus, global warming does not exist.further, the various climate institutes of the world used MY tax money in order to collect data, and so rather than conduct my own 20 million dollar study, i propose that the IPCC hands over all of its raw data so that other climatologists may replicate their results and do their own studies. alas, the IPCC lost all of their raw data, but fortunately, the new zealand raw data exists, and, lo and behold, when it was tested by independent scientists no global warming. nice.also, im not a sceptic . im simply a rational person who requires solid, logical reasoning before i accept something as being true, or not. that doesnt make me skeptical . it makes me convinceable so long as the rationale behind the argument actually holds water, then you can convince me.and please, enough of trying to label people (myself included) as being skeptics, deniers, warmists etc etc whatever. you want to attack someone, attack their ideas. leave the ad hominic stuff out, yah?