Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Anyone asserting that the current body of science is wrong about climate change should be able to back that up with data from non-questionable sources.
When you understand that there are no "non-questionable sources," you'll understand the point people are trying to make in this thread. Extraordinary claims may or may not require extraordinary proof -- at least one famous environmentalist said so, anyway -- but extraordinary demands most certainly do.
Rubbish. Are you seriously telling me that nobody has done critical analysis of the data who wasn't associated with the energy industry?