Re: Surprisingly high: Compared to what?
"The poor old AGW deniers are desperate for crumbs of anecdotal evidence because there is just about no one left with half a real science qualification arguing their side, and no substantial evidence."
For the record, I'm not an AGW denier. However, I am yet to be convinced that man is the primary cause of any warming we are seeing. A lot of the rhetoric seems to focus on people who are for or against the idea, when in reality there are quite a few people who just don't think the evidence* provided so far is conclusive enough.
Whilst we are at it, you don't require evidence to prove a negative. It is incumbant on the proponent of a theory to provide evidence that can be tested rigourously by independant parties. You can't prove a negative (that I am aware of).
*especially when there appears to be a lot of fudging going on.