If you can't see the significant difference between self-taught skills in HTML and doing scientific research as a climate scientist at NASA you're plain stupid. Period.
Peo, if you really think that I’m not entitled to an opinion – at least politically (if not scientifically) than why not tell Al Gore the same? He’s certainly no scientist. He has ZERO understanding of science; yet they allow Inconvenient Truth to be taught in schools (here in Australia)! Is there a difference (HTML to Climate Science)? Yes; but did you think to ask is there a similarity? All it comes down to is reading – law, history, or just about anything else so yes there’s a difference, obviously, but there’s also similarity.
Since you didn't understand my first post to this thread
Peo, I take resentment when people construct straw man arguments. I never claim to be anything that I'm not. If I've made an error point it out, otherwise don't insinuate that I’m an idiot, I don’t do it to you. The sceptic doesn't have to PROVE anything. Look what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis when he went against the clear scientific consensus of the time without being able to back up his theory with science. I don't have to PROVE that SensaSlim is a hocus-pocus product with no provable benefit - but what happened to Ken Harvey who was brave enough to say it? SensaSlim threatened to sue him if he didn't retract his statements, which he didn't so they went ahead and sued him. And since their shonky product was nothing more than an exercise in - that's right -
datamining I'm sure, guess what product can no longer be legally sold in Australia? That's right - SensaSlim. Seemed their lawsuit backfired on them. BTW, my heart goes out to Harvey because I’ve been saying the same about BioMagnetic for about 3 or 4 years (or however long they’ve been in existence).
And yes I have posted on science forums before.
There is nothing more solid than a straw man right now on global warming because without reliable data older than the past 100-300 years it is impossible to make a valid comparison. That's why no reputable scientist dares to try and claim any kind of proof on the topic.
See, here we have an understanding. Yes we have very good and reliable data going back a few hundred years; but what we don't have is global thermometer data. The fact that the instrumental data varies quite significantly from the proxy data NOW tells us more than likely it would also have in the past - or in other words, that the proxy data is not a complete picture of global mean surface temperature but is useful in indicating overall trends, etc. This is why no serious scientist will come out and give an actual estimated global mean surface temperature for the MWP or even a single year within it. So when I say there's strong evidence that it achieved higher temperatures than today - the evidence being glacial (glaciers that haven't yet retreated to MWP levels) not to mention land cultivation, etc - I'm not claiming that the MWP was warmer; I'm simply refuting the assertion made by some scientists that there's "no reasonable reason" to think that the MWP was anything more than "localized" or that it was "actually not all that warm".
Do you want to know another fact? Raw whether station data is not used, nor should it be used. It is always standardised to account for errors in the readings and other anomalies; and to account for when the stations gets moved. This is all fine and good, except that for a very large number of these the raw data has been discarded or destroyed so it cannot be scrutinized by third parties. Am I claiming this to be a serious issue? No – I’m claiming it to be poor scientific method when the original data is no longer available.
Incidentally, NASA is not as innocent as you may think either. As a branch of the government any data they gather is subject to certain levels of censorship until it is felt by the powers that be that it is packaged into a form safe for public viewing. They may know more than they are letting on, or on the contrary they may be more confused than the general public is about the whole matter because they can see what is actually happening and don't know why.
Their consistent message, however, for over 10 years is that CO2 is only part of the EGHE. As early as 2001 or maybe earlier they’ve been talking about the role Methane and Black Carbon have playing a significant role reducing CO2’s responsibility to around half. And it’s all on their website.