DA Morgan, I am one that is not particularly impressed by attacking the veracity of someone who disagrees with your point of view(to paraphrase your last post somewhat).
The point I made related to underlying data. The Goddard institute's words were used and they specifically indicate problems with their data. It was your reference. I was just looking at how those graphs were created. If you would like, discuss that.
As to my qualifications or not, this is a general forum for discussion. If you don't like my point of view, say so and perhaps refute it. Show me that the data is accurate. And the data was almust certainly not peer reviewed by the way, only the paper that was presented which summarised the data. The underlying raw data was not made available.
You are right, I do not have a degree in engineering or aeornautics or pretty much any of the fields I consulted in. I DO NOT have a PHd. I have four degrees in quite dissimilar fields and a JSD. What I do have that allowed me to consult on so many disimilar fields is an enquiring mind, access to the best in their fields to consult with and a skill at being able to look at often complex issues and collect and collate the evidence until a cause or causes could be established. None of this is particularly relevant to global warming but since my world has shrunk to little more than a room and a computer, I tend to ramble on a bit (actually a lot). My background is only relevant in that I have been used to looking at issues where experts' views were often contradictory or false. It tends to lead to a large dose of skepticism at any expert pronouncement taken at face value. That was the simple point I was making, however poorly I did it.
The fact that one of my degrees was a Science degree with a particular interest in climate change in recent geological history only means this type of forum would attract my attention, not that I used it for work. I didn't. Big deal! How does that discredit me?
The fact is that the Wiki global warming site and the Goddard Institute site use graphs that summarise data that has been deliberately changed (in an attempt to correct known defects in the data, not for sinister reasons) or is subject to significant problems because no one has recorded even local temperatures consistently and without the influence of man made variables being introduced over time. The use of this data is fundamental to the argument that there even is global warming.
There are a number of experts greatly concerned about just how the temperature figures are used. They just are far fewer than those that simply accept the general principal of global warming or man made global warming. Number imbalance has never, in the history of science, been a good indicator of just who's view is more likely to be correct.
I'll go back to the point that the Goddard Institute made although their graphs I believe give a somewhat misleading impression. The overall temperature change in the US over the last century has been a negative. That is the US has been cooler in the last century than the thus far known average. It certainly shows that there have been two cooling trends in the early part of the century and in the 50s and 60s and similar warming trends most notablably in the last part of the century but it also shows the hottest US temperature year was not recently but 1934, according to their own graph.
The graphs show up an anomoly between the US and the rest of the world. That anomoly is generally what those that study data would have the greatest interest in. Either there is a natural reason why the US differed from the rest of the world or the algorithms used to adjust the rest of the world figures were less accurate.
I'll finish now. I did believe this was a forum to discuss global warming, not to attack those that did not agree with you. I really would like to see any counter to my argument but I guess this is not the right forum.
Thank you for your time to those that replied to me.
