[zuminator]

As you know, you're piggybacking talking points off of a minor conspiracy theory that has been floating around for a while. Here's a yahoo post from 7 years ago raising the same questions and citing much the same sources: https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201211281036...

I won't pretend to know anything in detail about climate science but these alleged discrepancies don't seem to have raised enough alarms at any point to have warranted a serious rebuttal from the scientific community. Perhaps citing a handful of random cherry-picked sources isn't really the smoking gun you think it is? However, fwiw, here's a comment from a couple of years ago responding to some of those points. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=11&t=521&&a=110#...

[busymom0]

I pointed out with raw data and sources. Simply calling it a conspiracy theory without pointing anything wrong with my actual point or data isn't worth debating in good faith.