I really don't know why one would respond to you considering the lack of understanding you have. Do you know what "core samples" are? Now, I have actually seen no evidence from you that temperature changes have been made. I have seen discussions where it has been problematical as to the locations of certain recorders in the current times.
You know, or maybe you don't, that you aren't half as smart as you think you are...you apparently know the term core sample, but apparently have no clue as to what they have shown us...for instance, there have been multiple warm periods during the present interglacial in which temperatures were considerably warmer than the present and that CO2 follows warming making it a result of warming, not a cause...warm water can't hold as much dissolved gas as as cold water therefore as it warms, it ougasses CO2 and other dissolved gasses.
Try linking to your brain....look at two geographical locations at the same altitude and latitude....one near a large body of water, one in desert....the desert word should be a clue....pick a cloudless day and observe the temperature of the two...which do you think will be cooler?...might it be due to the greater humidity in the air causing a negative feedback? In addition, increased water vapor increases cloudiness which in turn increases the albedo of the earth by reflecting more incoming sunlight back into space...more water in the atmosphere results in cooling...this phenomenon has been observed over and over for hundreds of years.....yet another parameter within the climate models that induces spectacular failure..
Yes, most modals are flawed, and that is e=why they are usually used only by meteorologists for predicting local weather.[/quote]
You truly are clueless aren't you? Global climate models are used by climate science for long term prediction of the climate....as you say, they can't even predict accurately a few days out and yet, you believe doom and gloom predictions of 20, 50, 100 years and more based on models that are in fact, terribly flawed. Here are the predictions of the primary 90 global climate models presently in use today compared to actual observation...the blue and green squares represent radiosondes (balloons sent up into the atmosphere with instruments for measuring temperature among other factors) and satellite observations....note how closely satellite observations track with the actual measurements taken by radiosondes. The climate models consistently run hot because they are based on a flawed understanding of thermodynamics and atmosphere physics...if they were based on a correct understanding, they would not run consistently hot.
As to evidence of data tampering with the temperatures...again, you must be kidding...do you live in a bubble?
Here is one example...by cooling the past, climate science is able to make what small amount of warming we have had in the past 100 years appear larger....you can only increase present temperatures so much without looking like complete frauds so cooling the past serves to make the warming look larger...can you give a rational scientifically valid reason for cooling temperatures 50 years ago and more?
In order to make the global manipulation believable, it must be done at the local level...here are a few examples.
And the data tampering isn't confined to the US
And I could go on and on and on with the blatant evidence of data tampering...the news article from 1989 should be enough to make any thinking person wonder as the reported temperature increases from 1989 don't even come close to matching any modern temperature graph....why?...because that data has been manipulated heavily in an effort to support the AGW narrative.
Never said the sole cause was human activity. That's just like a low IQ person such as yourself calling me a Marxist which you have never proven. Of course, to you only others have to prove what they believed. Like Galileo was persecuted for his beliefs, you would do the same to others for theirs:
I never said that you did...I asked for some observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports, not proves, the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....I have been asking for decades for such evidence and none has been forthcoming because it simply does not exist...you are operating from a position of faith...not evidence as none exists......anywhere.
And I don't have to prove anything...I am not the one making claims of impending doom and asking for trillions of dollars to avoid catastrophe...the burden of proof is on the one making the claims...I can certainly prove that data has been manipulated....I can prove that predictions based on the AGW hypothesis have been failing for decades...I can prove that in real science when a hypothesis fails in a single prediction that it is scrapped and a new hypothesis is developed that can account for the failings of the previous hypothesis...and when that one fails a prediction it is scrapped as well and a new one developed...I can prove that climate scientists have admitted among themselves to fabricating data....while neither you, nor anyone else on your side of the argument can produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.
And which part of that bit of drivel do you think represents anything like observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....those "scientists" simply ran one failing, flawed model against another failing, flawed model....what do you believe could possibly come out of such a run other than failing, flawed results?....do you think two wrongs can make a right?....and such is the state of climate pseudoscience today...all of the evidence and so called proof is nothing more than the output of models that you, yourself admit are flawed.
Climate pseudoscience is more akin to religion today than anything resembling actual science....it is all based on the belief in models that have proven themselves to be hopelessly flawed by their decades long string of failed predictions.
