I found a paper that stated what sane people have been pointing out about the Global Warming accounting fiction: Global Mean Surface Temperature is MEANINGLESS
Averaging the Sahara and Greenland is for stupids; it’s like average phone numbers
I’m so old I remember when the IPCC had to start including “deep ocean” warming in their fictional dataset to make their numbers work
You’re mixing rhetorical analogies, selective anecdotes, and outright false premises, then declaring the entire field meaningless when the real problem is you don't actually understand it.
GMST is not average phone numbers. It is a physically meaningful state variable for an energy balance system. Climate is governed by conservation of energy, how much radiative energy enters the Earth system and how much leaves. GMST tracks the integrated thermal response of the surface to changes in radiative forcing. No one claims it describes local experience; it describes the
global heat content trend. They use averages for systems with spatial variability all the time. Rejecting GMST is equivalent to rejecting thermodynamics as a modeling framework.
The claim that the IPCC “added deep ocean warming to make the numbers work” is simply false. The ocean was measured because basic physics predicts it absorbs most excess heat, and observations confirm it. Over 90% of the additional energy from greenhouse forcing goes into the oceans, not the atmosphere. This has been independently measured through multiple means. Excluding the ocean would mean ignoring most of the energy in the system.
“Last interglacial Greenland was 8°C warmer” does not refute modern warming; it confirms climate sensitivity. The Eemian had higher summer insolation in the northern hemisphere due to orbital forcing and CO2 around ~280–300 ppm. Global temperature was only ~1–2C warmer than preindustrial, yet Greenland experienced strong regional amplification. That’s exactly what climate physics predicts, small global forcing, large polar response due to feedbacks. You’re confusing regional anomalies with global means.
“Long-term station data show no correlation between CO2 and temperature” is demonstrably false. Every major independent dataset shows the same multi decadal warming trend tracking rising greenhouse forcing. The only way to get “no correlation” is to cherry pick short time windows, specific regions, or
non peer reviewed blogs like Electroverse that systematically filter out inconvenient data.
You're rejecting system level variables, global integration, energy accounting, and replacing physical theory with anecdotes and selective cold records. Climate science is not built on “mean temperatures because vibes.” It’s built on radiative transfer, conservation of energy, and empirical measurements across independent observing systems.
Your post doesn’t challenge that framework; it just ignores it.
