We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I guess we're all not gonna drown this week. His post is rational, and deserves to be widely spread around.
I have no doubt that all of the global warming climate change etc. nonsense is about politics and power. And I do not give a darn what the weather does: whatever it does is fine with me as long as I am healthy and free, and my kids are ok.
It is always a delight to read a clear discussion of good data and what it means. It is all the more delightful when it supports the position I like and uses the very data of the enviro-nanny-fascists to directly refute their concepts.
CO2 might have had a serious effect on global climate. The theory was worth examining. It has been examined and effectively disproved by actual events.
Mr. Hoven is correct to view either a 30-year trend or a 10-year trend as rather short. The cycling of temps within the instrument record seems to indicate that we are seeing only normal variations. The doubts about the validity of the instrument record are also well-founded.
As far as instrument records go, I have read repeatedly (I don't have the cite handy) that satellite temperature monitoring has had no discernible trend in thirty years. These cover more of the planet with more consistent measuring tools than anything on the surface. One of the things that hampers James Hansen's credibility is his refusal to use the satellite data when it comes from his own agency.