Let’s keep to the science, assuming you really want to get to the truth of the matter. And, if you do care about the science, Charles Dickens gives a more faithful account of climate change than the astrologers of modern government science climatology.
It’s amazing that global warming alarmism got as far as it did. And, it did so only with the help of a willing academia, a willing liberal press and an amazingly superstitious and ignorant society (What do Charles Dickens and George Washington both have in common? They both lived during the Little Ice Age that occurred from about the mid thirteenth century to the 1860s–Dickens wrote about a “White Christmas” and our vision of Washington is crossing the Delaware afloat with chunks of ice).
And, any academic that continues to pretend to defend the concept that a global average temperature can have any meaning in the real world is a complete fraud. We can only give the concept of an ‘average global temperature’ meaning if we are honest in its use.
For example, we cannot prove human-CO2 is causing global warming based on the concept of an ‘average global temperature.’ We can, however, use the concept to prove it is meaningless to that application.
For example, what do the Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods have in common? Current global temperatures are 5°F cooler than these previous warm periods. Similarly, we can use the same concept of ‘average global temperature’ to also demonstrate we currently are heading into a period of global cooling instead of global warming.
Let’s look at the issue of honesty. The medieval warm period (WMP) existed in the IPCC’s 1990 report. However, in its 2001 report the IPCC wiped the WMP from the graph. Instead, they printed Mann’s `hockey stick’ graph (depicting an absolute flat level of average global temperature until the last 60 years) knowing full well that it was wholly erroneous. Moreover, the IPCC showcased Mann’s graph and reproduced it over and over again, even after Mann’s graph had been thoroughly debunked. It is obvious that the IPCC deals only in the politics of fear and from the beginning was never driven by truth and honesty.
It is obvious that the concept of an ‘average global temperature’ has never had more than a political meaning. The simple fact of the matter is that global warming alarmism is based on an ideologically-driven agenda supported by lies, damn lies, and statistics.