I did see that post, started to skim it, but was uncomfortable with their tone. Page 4 Item 11: "systematic hyping." I realize you can't lay out your entire ca

I did see that post, started to skim it, but was uncomfortable with their tone. Page 4 Item 11: "systematic hyping." I realize you can't lay out your entire case by page 4, but I would have felt more comfortable with an indication of the basis for this term and that it will be proven to be systematic hyping. Page 5: "Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed how all the data centers, most notably NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than, in reality, they actually did." "Conspired" is possibly accurate, but a little jarring, especially when applied to "my" NASA; they gave us Tang, after all. A more specific reference or reminder, rather than a footnote to an entire report, would have been good here to soften the blow to someone who watched the Apollo 11 landing in my pajamas on my knees 18 inches from the TV. Page 5: "Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler." "They may have been working under the auspices ..." Were they? Weren't they? Some indication of why, beyond assumption, the authors think so would have been good, or a statement that this will be revealed later in the document. "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully ..." Then show it, or refer me to later in the document where you fulfill the promise that "it can be shown." "Purposefully" is also something that I need to have either proven, or a reference to where you're going to prove it or have seen it proved. I only intended to skim the document, but by the time I got here I felt a little uncomfortable at what I perceived as wild-eyedness. Everything I object to here may well be true, and may be proved later in the document, but without any indication that proof would be forthcoming it started to sound like so much hand waving. Speaking as a robust skeptic.