You're Getting Warmer.

    There has to be some clever way for a liberal such as myself to say I think Global Warming is bunk.  I know!  Ah bullshit!
    As a college student I got interested in semantics and statistics. I think most of what I've seen in support of the idea of climate change violates the principles of one or both of those subjects.
    Words mean things. The use of certain words in certain ways imply things. These guys keep saying significant this and significant that. I don't think that word means what they think it means. In a lot of these instances I think the word has been substituted for "trivial".
    NOAA and NASA have combined to demonstrate a "significant" rise in ocean levels over the last 1,000 years using satellite data. They do not refer to the obvious question of where they might have gotten satellite or any data a thousand years ago. They create a graph showing 3 inches on the depth side and 20 years on the time side. That shows a less than 1 inch "rise" over about a 20 year period.  The red line they graph over that period certainly does look dramatic, maybe even significant. They then extrapolate dire predictions for the next 50 years. Here's the hook. If their graph were constructed with a time frame of 50 years their red line would become nearly flat. They have semantically and statistically mixed apples and oranges and come up with a lemon. They may be right but you couldn't prove it with any of the data they presented.  Judging by their dire, straight faces they don't seem to be aware of their mistake.  They are sooo serious. They also seem to have not considered the thousands of archeological sites, docks, quays, seawalls that show no increase in sea levels.  I don't think they are deliberately misleading.  I think they have wandered outside their disciplines and reached unwarranted conclusions.  They may be victims of a follow the herd and publish or die mentality. Either way, they do seem to be trapped in an academic echo chamber. That's pretty common.
    Another thing: These various studies seem to build on previous studies based on maybe not faulty data but faulty conclusions from misinterpreted data.  Again: They may be right but you couldn't prove it with the data they present.
     That brings me to fossil fuels. The idea of the "carbon footprint" may be one of the dumbest things I ever heard. Yeah, put a matching sweater on your dog and kid.  However, it does have the effect of causing people to reduce their use of,  mostly, petroleum.  Economically that's essential.  I don't care what your bullshit reasons are; just keep it up.
    Here's one of the obviously ridiculous predictions about burning fossil fuels: Acid rain.  I live in Pittsburgh. For nearly a century it was a leading,  fossil fuel hazmat site. There has always been a prevailing westerly wind. If the dire predictions had any basis in reality there would be a wasteland just to the east extending to Three Mile Island and the average age of mortality in that wasteland would be 25.
    So, this all sounds like anecdotal data but in reality, it's empirical data that has been ignored. That is a distinction with a difference.
    I could be wrong but so far these guys haven't proved it.  Put another lump of coal on the fire Darlin. The dog and the kid have a sweater but you didn't knit one for me.