I recently decided to examine climate science... it wasn't my field, and I had sort of accepted the statements of general scientific consensus of man-made global warming. It really didn't take long at all to become stunned by the intense and immense efforts focussed on data acquisition, only to discover that the methodology of testing, and data extraction was apparently universally wild, and entirely inconsistent... and perhaps even impossible to achieve (to gain useful conclusion). Valid error tolerances that spanned entire charts. Data sets from different test methods, and different parts of the globe... combined into a chaos of points that could be graphed high or low, depending purely on how the graph is desired to appear. Apparently, these graphs are called reconstructions.... where entire periods of warming and freezing can either appear or disappear eg. Medieval Warm Period / Little Ice Age. All dependent upon who is doing the reconstruction. I do not doubt the scientific analysis of ice cores, isotopes, nor even the ever improving tree record. I'm talking about climatology. What does everybody think?