So you believe it is natural / cyclical I would assume.IF and that's a very IF ,climate change is for real than the left has no one to blame but themselves for their inability to convince the general public. The left has lied consistently about anything and everything to advance the globalist agenda [The boy who cried wolf...]. Climate Change is no exception. In the words of Obamas mentor "Never let a good crisis go to waste" ... assuming that it could possibly be for real the leftards are using it in their relentless agenda to drive American and Western exceptionalism into the dirt. My gut feeling is that it is not as there are many many instances of politicized science and skewered numbers that have been exposed. It's so very sad that a pack of delusional dullards lead around like ravenous sheep are doing so much harm to the rest of the world thinking they are doing good ... sadn and sickeningAnd all the satellite data is also a lie, correct? Ian, you are failing badly. The evidence and data says you are reaching desperately for anything that would support your political beliefs, rather than the clear direction the data and evidence points.Because that's all that's needed. Duh.
Adding more stations to an area that's already saturated changes the average not at all. Those familiar with the science know that. Hence, you don't know it.
No, no cookie, because you guessed wrong. You shouldn't guess. You should rely on hard data, like we do here in the reason-based community.
The dropped stations show exactly the same trend as the kept stations. If anything, the 1991 station drops introduced a cooling bias.
Clear Climate Code » Blog Archive » The 1990s station dropout does not have a warming effect
Global Update
Residual Analysis: GHCN Processor 1.0
Naturally, this is where you declare all that data is faked as well. It's what you do. It's all you do. Hence, my point that you rely entirely on paranoid conspiracy gibberish.
Changing the size and constituents of a data set cannot help but change the analysis.
In the case of US temps, the size has remained the same but the stations which are no longer reporting data have been infilled with estimated readings which are higher on average than the real ones.
There are always plausible sounding explanations for the endless changes to the data and the methodologies but it always seems to increase the trend. Dubious at best, much more likely to just be currying favour by giving favoured results.
Climate change is very real. Mans contribution to it is what is not real.
Of course. Climate is never static. Anyone who thinks that is so needs to have their head examined.