Replies

[[Paul Homewood has reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature]]

here’s a verifiable fact-

They accused A satellite that didn’t report ‘high enough’ temperatures, as being ‘out of position’- so they threw the actual numbers it recorded out, and ‘recalculated what they thought the numbers should be’ and voilà- we had global warming again for the 20 or so years that previously showed no warming-

So- when the numbers don’t verify the agenda, throw them out and invent new ones-

Question Zero of the many questions that I need answered before I buy into the arguments of Global Warming advocates is “how do you define global average temperature?” Question 0.1 is “how is it directly measured?”. Question 0.2 is “for how long has it been measured?” I’ve never received satisfactory answers that even get me to Question 1.0: “is the world warming in an atypical way?” Let alone Question 2.0: “is the American middle class responsible for the warming?”

Later questions revolve around whether the warming is a good or bad thing, what if anything can be done about it without making things worse, etc. Give me satisfactory answers to those questions, and I’ll join your Global Warming club.

The author missed a key piece of logic and factual information. It is impossible to accurately measure temperature in the past, which is used for comparison to today's temperatures. There is error in all measurements. It is one of the first things people should learn about in a chemistry or physics class. The accuracy of measurements have increased in recent years (but there is still error). This in itself creates a delta between measurements of the past and today. Additionally, there is no method of measurement other than estimation for temperatures from centuries or millennia ago. Ice cores can not be found on the equator. Tree rings cannot be found in the Arctic and Antarctic. Even when these things can be found, there are not enough samples to align to current day temperature readings. A lack of samples, that are not geographically aligned and measurements that are at best estimations increase errors in comparison with current temperature readings that have their own built-in errors.

It is hideous to think that there isn't a minimum of +/- 3-5 C of error in their measurements. They are forced to manipulate data and hide their methods to make their findings seem believable. Here is the major rub, science is not about belief. It is about constant skepticism, trying prove/disprove current hypothesis and theories through experiments. Climatologists' tool box do not consist of experiments, but rather computer models that receive the input of data with gross errors.

Climatologist are not scientists. The rigor to their field of study is lacking. To be completely blunt, it is less rigorous than meteorology and meteorologists as we all know are wrong in their predictions a significant amount of time. One must recognize there is an academic order of failure that naturally occurs at all universities. Those that do not have the intelligence, aptitude and ability to achieve in hard sciences are forced to change majors to lesser fields of study.

Climatologists rarely start out as climatologists. They failed out a hard science or were never able to gain entry into a hard science program. These same people must rely on politics for success because they have nothing else to rely. Their science is not real. Their education is lacking. Their knowledge is weak. Their intelligence is wanting. Additionally, they must receive taxpayer funding for their very existence. Their drivel has no market or practical use in the private sector. Hence the need for politics.