Yes, I was being serious. When I question the methodology, my first thought is how are the ships spread out? Do we put one thermometer in each x sq mi grid, so that the entire globe is chopped into equally-sized pieces? And sample from each one at the same rate? I doubt it.

Or do they randomly sample from where some ships happen to be at a certain time? Do some researchers hop in a boat, cruise around, and tell everybody about the temps they experienced? What about the temps where they weren't? What about the other days when they weren't there? Do they mount the thermometers on the smokestacks? When the measurements are taken, is the thermometer on the winward or leeward side of the ship?

In sampling buoys and things like that - how do they account for areas that have more or less thermometers per a given area? Does a lone thermometer in a 1,000 sq mi area count 1,000 times as much thermometers in an area where there is one thermometer per square mile? What percentage of the earth's surface area is being measured? Are we taking as many samples in Siberia as we are in Western Eurpoe?

What else is in the local area of the thermometer? Does the buoy have a steam boat sailing past it everyday? Kidding of course, but seriously... I've heard reports of thermometers used for these studies being placed near local heat sources.

And truthfully, I don't care enough to research how they do it. I'm focussing my efforts elsewhere. But if I can think of this many potential issues off the top of my head, I'm sure I've only covered 1% of the variables. And I just don't believe they have a system in place that accounts for such a huge, complex problem. I believe they've loaded up on simplifications and assumptions - both of which are a necessity. But if after all those shortcuts they tell me a certain year is hotter than another by 1*F, I write it off as margin of error. Change your assumptions, change your method, and I'm sure your result will change by more than 1*F.

what is your background? are you a scientist in some field?

You're right - "arguments from authority" are not necessarily valid arguments. One of the primary foundations of science is questioning. Another is that "science" doesn't ask one to accept the findings without evidence to support them. There is ample evidence out there that climate change is real and is not a product of an inaccurate process or fraud. Many, many varied and diverse studies have all pointed to the same conclusion - man made global warming is a real phenomenon. See for yourself - the evidence is there.

One important factor, though, is that one needs to have some level of understanding to even question. Like many scientific fields, atmospheric science is not easily understood without putting in substantial effort. That's just the way it is. In the absence of "putting in the effort" all we lowly internet forum members can do is either blindly believe what other people tell us (not necessarily a good thing) or we can attempt to understand that this subject is most likely very complex and that the "experts" probably have legitimate reasons to publish the scientific papers that they do. After all, ~ 97% of the scientists in the field accept man-made global warming. Without adequate knowledge of the science involved, I don't think any of us are truly qualified to question the science.

That is not to say that we should blindly "believe" (only religions require that) - but that it is imperative that each of us educate ourselves before questioning others. In situations where I have taken the time to educate myself on a subject, I've found that the experts are generally experts for a very good reason - they're right.

No, sorry, didn't mean to mislead you. I'm a systems engineer ("network/server guy"). Between that and teaching on the side that's where my time and effort goes. Well, that and PPOT.

I was a an ME major at one time in my life. I ended up going another direction but I think it shaped the way I look at things.

It's all a BS scam.

Did you know that the CIA has a global warming division? Oh wait, make that a "climate change" division.

sammy - see my DoD post above; that's what is up with all the xIAs

Head - I can understand your emphasis. There is a huge amt. of disinformation floating around. It reminds me of the Tobacco industry and lung cancer. There are valid questions about the extent of warming, acidification, spread of certain plants from high CO2 levels, and magnitude of extreme events, as well as the impacts to human economies and civilizations.

There is no scientific controversy as to the fact of warming, and little doubt as to the cause.