Why push the so-called "theory of AGW" unless there is a goal.
Because it is science.
Science does not have "goals", it has facts, data and evidence.
The only people who deny this - as we know on this board for an absolute fact - are those with extreme political views and a tendency to deny facts, data and evidence in all areas of debate.
"Science" does NOT have an agenda.
In this case the AGW is part of a political agenda.
As a result, the tendency is for a less then "pure" scientist to eliminate some readings.
As a result, I'm suspicious when the BASE point of AGW is the temperature reading stations that have been continuously recording temperatures from 1901.
"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12
from 1989 to present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit
"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)
Are surface temperature records reliable?
In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:
manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective
So please refute the simplest illustration that the temperature reading stations were biased BEFORE NOA satellites providing base points to declare "Global warming" when these stations are prone to error... especially when 12.5% of land mass i.e. Siberia readings are not taken into account!
