I didn't "list" anything. I was quoting an article. So here's your logic:
(1) Two "legitimate scientific institutions" - your words - say something based on their research.
(2) But an article reporting what the legitimate scientific institutions said also says another organization (that you do not respect as a "legitimate scientific institution") came to a similar conclusion.
(3) THEREFORE, the otherwise valid conclusion and research that the otherwise "legitimate scientific institutions" produced is invalid.
Could your logic be any more faulty? Could you be any more dishonest?
And BTW - thanks for illustrating the exact tactics and substituting-politics-for-science idiocy that I'm talking about. That should have opened some eyes on the dishonesty of those who are trying to convince the rest of us of global warming.
Please - spout some more.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')