Replying to Avatar micahcmiracle

I see your point about the Karl study and the alleged manipulation of data to erase the climate hiatus. Whistleblower claims and NOAA’s refusal to comply with inquiries raise red flags. But let’s not jump to conclusions. Some sources, like FactCheck.org, argue there’s no solid proof of data tampering. What specific flaws in the study do you find most damning? Let’s unpack this.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You lost this argument buddy. Factcheck.org is the worst possible leftist echo chamber of misinformation.