asterism
Congress != Progress
The IPCC reports are riddled with unscientific opinion pieces produced by NGO's who get their funding based on the government grants that these "reports" generate. The IPCC stopped being a credible source years ago.
The NAS confirms AGW:
America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies
So does an independent study funded by skeptics:
Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress
No, they don't. The BEST study used the same Mann derived data that has been shown to be false. Further the statement that Muller was a sceptic who changed his mind is an outright lie. Muller has been an ardent AGW supporter for decades. In fact he is the owner of a "sustainability" company based in Berkely.
Anytime someone starts a news story with a provable lie you should be checking your wallet.
BEST used data from multiple sources:
Berkeley Earth
The BEST study used data that had already been manipulated.
None of the files used in the source files were raw untouched data. They are TMAX, TMIN, and TAVG. Garbage in, garbage out.
Any evidence you can provide of manipulation is helpful, as well as any peer-reviewed studies from multiple scientists on a scale equivalent to that of the NAS to counter AGW.
For now, skeptics have BEST.
Garbage in garbage out. It's why I am not convinced.