OUR STYLE We in the Right sometimes hurt our own causes by attempting to appear fair and ecumenical and conceding some point to the
enemy opposition which need not — indeed, should not — be conceded.
For example, take the case of so-called catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).
Even scientists and informed amateurs sometimes say, “Well, yes, there has been warming over the last century.” They’re saying it wrong. What they should be saying is, “Yes, there ias been warming observed over the last 150 years and more.” That “observed” makes all the differences when you understand the palpable and documented inadequacies of the network of observing stations.
All we can say is that when we’ve looked where we’ve looked, the observations show a slight rise in globally averaged temperatures.
Note that I’m saying “averaged“. In other words, the temperature observations have been averaged to produce a number (or a series of numbers mapped over time), but the significance of that/those number(s) is arguable (and I would argue that it is null).
The map is not the territory.
Once you understand the pitiful inadequacy of the global historical climatological network (GHCN), (of which the American stations surveyed by Anthony Watts’ Surface Stations initiative (linked above) are among the best in the quality and reliability of observational data), you understand that WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. what the true global average temperature is now or has been at any time in the past.
And, I submit, given the size, complexity, and chaotic nature of the atmosphere, we CANNOT know with any reasonable degree (pun
int.) the true global average temperature. In order to find that number, the observation network would need to be nearly as large and complex as the atmosphere itself, and then would likely have an unacceptable margin of error.
Right now, as you can see from the charts at Surface Stations dot org, the fundamental accuracy AND precision of the network are both so poor that the margin of error is something like an order of magnitude larger than the purported warming.
There could be more, but as you can see, just this much would seem to be a slam-dunk. We need to swat down the “denier” accusations. The proposed “solutions” will solve nothing, but will dissolve a great deal of our wealth — and with it, our ability to deal with or adapt to true environmental issues.