I can't back it up because it was a televised congressional committee hearing and I don't remember the name of the scientist but he said that his data he had been studying and working with that was published in the 1940's was different from the data that is now published for that same time period. He made no accusations he just said his data showed no signs of global warming. So, I guess as a skeptic, yes this does make me think they are making it all up.
What are you skeptic of? There is so much misleading denialism of what is now ao blindingly obvious to any casual reasonable observer, that I propose you apply you skepticism with a bit a cui bono.
Hello Giardini. Oh wow I typed "ao" instead of "so"... the earth is saved!
"casual reasonable observer" being science indeed, check out the IPCC report, it's a super hot read I heard. Or you can publish your own and send it for peer review. I think you have no valid argument to put forward to explain how you are being a sceptic, but hey if you think you do, and if you think you are actually a sceptic, then please carry on I'm all ears.
I'd expect that our current temperature measurements are much, much more accurate than in the early 1900s, so while I'd expect them to be tweaked, not by much.
But this whole debate is pretty much a smokescreen. Sure, there are definitely error bars around temperature records of the past and estimates for the future. But one thing I have never seen be in question is the sheer amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... .
The atmosphere now contains 50% more CO2 than pre-industrial times. The oceans are now 30% more acidic. These are gargantuan amounts. Sure, the global climate is incredibly complex, and how the climate reacts in different places in the world (e.g. ocean currents, ice cover, sea levels, temperatures, atmospheric humidity, storm intensity, etc.) is the hard work of some very smart people in climate science. But it's preposterous to me that we think we could raise the main global greenhouse gas by 50% and increase ocean acidity by 30% and not see some major impacts.
So while I think it's important to "worry about the details", only if done in good faith. Nitpicking around whether temperatures have rising 1.1 vs. 1.2 degrees, and using that as "evidence" that global warming isn't a problem or isn't worth doing something about, is what is so ridiculous in the face of avalanches of other data that we are seriously affecting the global climate.
As someone who has lived in South Texas my whole life and seen summers go from uncomfortably hot when I was a child to now dangerous to life, I have to say that my data leads me to believe that we're doomed. I do wish I could believe what you believe though; much like I wish there was a god in heaven who loves and protects me - it seems to really help people get through the day, but I seem to be incapable of believing it myself.
