&#62; you state your conclusions as premises, and preemptively ridicule and strawman the other side.<p>While I might have been slightly sarcastic in my reply, I don't think I was attacking a straw man with the core of my argument. If you are drawing the conclusion that there isn't evidence for AGW you are either denying evidence or ignorant of it. The amount of invalidated evidence is dwarfed by the remainder.<p>This is the same kind of phenomenon in human cognition that leads people to believe that plane travel is less safe than car travel. We learn to fear memorable stories (SCANDAL IN THE IPCC! FOX NEWS SPECIAL TONIGHT! likened unto PLANE HIJACKED WITH FLAMING DILDOS! TSA TO BAN FEMALE ORGASM IN AIRPORTS!) more than we fear the statistically backed realities.<p>&#62; despite clear evidence of scientific misconduct and numerous errors and fallacies pointed out?<p>"Numerous" being "a handful" and "scientific misconduct" being "data smoothing" and "nasty emails." This is _all you have_. After years of digging, this is the sum total. And it's unsurprising that a few cases of this exist. I mean, even particle physics has its scandals and you wouldn't think those people were likely to go there.<p>&#62; Also - I'm a conservationist<p>Classic political/conversational trick. "Btw I am actually a member of group _____, so I can say with authority." It's bullshit, of course. No one cares if you are a conservationist, and it doesn't affect your correctness in any way. It's just a misleading kind of "argumentum ad populum" where centrism must be right because it appeals to the most people in a bar.