Everything Anthony Bright-Paul writes in this article might be true, but he’s missing the real reason our side loses the policy debates, which is, as I keep saying, not enough Americans even hear our side of the argument. It astounds me how many thinking people make the assumption that both sides are adequately represented in the information war. Here’s Bright-Paul writing at American Thinker:
I am a climate skeptic. Many skeptics know that and have even contributed to my book Climate for the Layman. But we are losing the argument and for one simple reason. We keep, — or at least some of us — keep up the illusion that there is such a thing as a Global Temperature. There is no such entity and never has been. Furthermore there is no such thing as an average Global Temperature either. Peace be to Dr. Christy of the University of Alabama, for whom I have the greatest respect. He assures me that there is an average Global Temperature arrived at by inference from remote sensing from satellites. This is done by counting the number of joules, which as you all know I trust, are units of energy.
But may I humbly beg to differ. It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average. It is clear that an average such as NASA provides based upon some 3,486 weather stations situated at 5ft above the ground is just nonsense. Why? Because in the whole of this sacred Planet of ours to determine the temperature based upon such a sparse amount is truly ridiculous. Moreover of the 3,486 stations 3,269 are situated in the relatively warm areas of Europe, America, and Africa. How many stations are there in the vast continent of Antarctica? Merely 8. Read that again — merely 8.
This is not an average at all. In no way is it scientific. In no way does it make clear that had the temperature been taken at 10ft above the ground the readings would have been different. The fact is these are atmospheric temperatures that are measuring the tiniest possible part of the atmosphere. The atmosphere that we live in has a thickness of some 66 miles or 100 kilometres not just 5 ft. So in no way is this a truly atmospheric temperature.
Read more: American Thinker