Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Scientists Say No to AGW, Sign Petition

Sometimes ordinary people get it right, even if they have wierd reasons.
zed — (archived)

I don't really care about what some "institute" of self-appointed experts says. But if they agree with me, they can't go wrong!

I've taken a look at the data supporting AGW, and found it to be flawed. My reasons are based on both common sense and mathematics:

Common Sense Reasons:

1. Much of North America was covered in glaciers around 10000 years ago. They melted. We didn't do it. Now that we can compile aerial and satellite photos of mountains and arctic ice (areas which were previously inaccessible and unsurvivable) we see that the process is still ongoing. Go figure. I still don't think we have anything to do with it.

2. I haven't noticed any change in the temperature! Good enough for day-to-day business.

3. Fanatics are always trying to create a boogeyman. That's what AGW is. Someone imagined "What if the world was going to end tomorrow?!!" and "What if I can I create a problem and then solve it, people would love me...." It's a cult of personality, man! Just short of becoming a religion. You might have to re-write that part of your constitution separating church and state to include.... what? Separation of state from church and science with piss-poor methodology. That's what.

Mathematical Reasons:

1. There isn't enough historical data to establish what normal temperature variance really is.

2. Those average variances are highly dependent on sample size. AGW charts use a 5-year sample. Is this the standard? Why? Why not use another sample size instead?

3. What is a "global mean temperature" ? The earth is tilted on its axis, with the south experiencing winter while the north experiences summer.

4. So what if there are thousands of temperature stations? Are there equal numbers of stations on each latitude? If not, how do they prevent an overabundance of temperature readings taken from tropical regions from biasing the overall data into an apparent "warming trend" ?

5. I notice most temperature stations were constructed in the last 50 years. Might be why there is a warming trend only in the last 50 years.

6. The longest running temperature stations, such as the record kept in England, shows no significant change versus the "1960" mean.

7. Why is 1960 the reference temperature against which all other data is measured?

-----------------------

I'm going to stop here, I don't want to make deranged violent AGW fanatics mad at me. On a side note if you want to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, there are lots of excellent alternative reasons and means to do so.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (100 posts)