From JunkScience.com comes an AP report that states: ““Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998,” NASA climate scientist James Hansen admits in the GISS report. However, he adds that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and that 2011 was cooled by a moderately strong La Niña.”
Does anyone remember taking science classes in grade school? Does anyone remember one of the first things we were taught? I didn’t think so. We were taught that in scientific experiments there always needs to be constants. Otherwise, what is there left to compare change to?
As shameful and disgusting as it is, people around the globe have been forced into being skeptical of any data put out by any climate scientists. There is so much money and politics behind climate science, the corruption renders news reports, like the one linked to here, as completely laughable. Why should we believe any of their crap?
But, beside that, consider the poor science in and of itself. In this report, these scientists are attempting to convince people the world is warming at a rapid rate and of course, even without any proof, they blame it on carbon dioxide. They base their conclusion of a rapidly warming globe on temperatures that are “above the average”.
What they fail to tell us are two extremely important items that render their conclusions something even an 8th grade science teacher would give a student a poor grade for. Climate scientists base their average temperature on records kept for the past 132 years. To a 5-year-old, 132 years seems like a long time but in climatological ranks, 132 is barely a blink of the eye.
Therefore, my 8th grade science teacher would question my conclusions as to how I obtained an “average” temperature, especially if I was trying to convince the teacher it applied to the planet since day one. I might have gotten a passing grade if I had explained that having only records for 132 years, it would be unreliable to trust my average extended out over millenniums.
The second issue involves the equipment, locations and methods of temperature taking over the 132 years. If a scientist could not have used the exact same locations, under the exact same conditions, using the exact same equipment, collecting data using the exact same methods, can it honestly be totally reliable scientific conclusions? Shouldn’t there at least be asterisks attached to certain data to explain differences?
Climate science is too young with far too many unanswered questions to be making brash statements and providing unsubstantiated conclusions about our climate, what’s causing any change and what direction it is headed in.
Please, continue the research but give us a friggin break on the political sheep dip!