Of course I’m biased! I would love to think that AGW was a bunch of hippie BS and we could all burn fossil fuels guilt-free.
I, unlike some people however, acknowledge my biases and turn to the scientific method and the peer-review process when I’m seeking the truth. Which, unfortunately in this case, comes to a conclusion that is the opposite to what I would very much like to believe. So I therefore must accept it.
Why on earth would I, or anybody, be biased *PRO* AGW? Maybe if you were a luddite or ELF nazi maybe, but what sane person would endorse it otherwise?
“The burden of proof is with IPCC, not the critics.”
You are making the claim the science is bad, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove it. Provide new research that invalidates the AGW hypothesis, or the IPCC. Get it published.
Until then, you are just an anonymous net nut, no different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
