Yes. I was unconvinced.
But I doubt you and I would get anywhere debating it.
But, just so you know, my problem is that this sounds like the same argument that has cropped up every few months over the last several years, each time claiming to be some new breathtaking scoop on "the climate change conspiracy." Since I do not believe there is a conspiracy, it is hard for me to read the same old arguments over and over again with fresh eyes.
But, let me try to be a little more generous to this position. Let's assume everyone from NASA to the EPA to the Pentagon to the CIA to the NSA to the Weather Channel, etc., etc., is not actually in on the conspiracy but in fact are all being duped by a few well placed people who are in on the conspiracy. Then the question arises as to what the motive is. In my mind I have exhausted every possible explanation for why a group of people would want to dupe the entire world on this topic and I find them all to be pretty far fetched.
So let's just say that everyone has a bias in this discussion and leave it at that. Joe D'Aleo has been pretty up front about his bias which I will quote:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
I find this to be really terrible theology, contrary to scripture and sacred tradition. But that is my bias. So you see the problem. I would have to chance my entire world view (something that only one person in a million can ever accomplish) to accept the starting point of the person whose bias is to not take climate change seriously.
If you actually read it (go to a different source than Daily Caller if you need to) then you wouldn't have responded with 27 other linked articles that have no bearing or relationship to the current debate at hand. A few points:
* I agree with you that nobody should be having scientific debates moderated by someone like Tucker Carlson.
Now, having gotten that out of the way:
* There is a PEER REVIEWED study out that shows that nearly all of the warming in temperatures has come from manual adjustments to the raw temperature data.
So it doesn't matter how many different studies we throw at each other that show the temperatures have risen X amount, global warming is causing Y, etc. - all those underlying studies and all of the data scientists worldwide are using to arrive at their consensus is based upon manually adjusted readings.
Now, as engineers, we all know that various types of sensors that measure temperature send an output signal...electronically, in mm of Mercury, etc. These signals are then converted to a temperature number based upon an equation. And we do learn over time that these equations or correction factors need to be adjusted. So we can't wholly throw this revelation out as full proof of a conspiracy by scientists. But what I found interesting is that all of the raw temperature values were lowered a long time ago and all were increased recently. THAT is what will get your conspiracy ears perked up - why is it nearly uniform manual adjustments? These temperature sensors are all over the world, and they all needed tweaking identically?
There's a lot more wrong than I'll get into on this one single post, but that's enough for now.
By the way, today is day #4,279 since the last time a Category 3 hurricane or stronger made landfall on the United States. That's an all time record, and by many many years.
, smells like a