[/QUOTE]While I would love to believe that my country is so globally influential that no other researcher in the whole wide world bothers to go to the freely available raw data from the world's weather stations, but every one of them uses secondary figures fudged by a single British uni, I would like to see some evidence for this astounding claim. What are these "news sources," and are any of them not owned by the Murdoch Corporation?[/QUOTE]I suppose I would find myself point a finger at AP. Since all the other news outlets seem to take their reports from there verbatim. Thing is when I listen to or read news reports I do not takes notes in order to convince, or lead others to that source. If that becomes necessary that the pleasure of said reading or learning becomes seriously weakened.

[/QUOTE]And when the "other" sources (I would love to know what those quotes mean) go elsewhere for their data (as they surely will now) and get the same results, who will you blame then? That's the trouble with conspiracy theories: like Pinochio's nose, they keep growing and growing.[/QUOTE]
Unlike certain people I have never denied that the planet had been experiencing a warming. However since that pronouncement has as its start date the end of a period called the "Little Ice Age" hardly seems like man could be the source. When the proponents of Global Heat Disaster dismiss the fact that the planet itself has done this before makes it hard to accept the edict that we puny humans are the sole cause, or even the proximate cause. When the aforementioned disasterites dismiss every bit of evidence that the planet has begun a cooling as an aberation and not worthy of consideration again tends to weaken their position.
Personally I make every effort to avoid the term conspiracy. However I will admit an agenda for the AGW crowd.