Climate change... Much ado about nothing?

I've stood back from this since your first post along these lines, bar pointing you to one set of date to look at. I stood back because I was basically incredulous. It is called GLOBAL warming and CLIMATE change for a reason. Looking at the temperature at ONE place on ONE day of the year for 100 years - which was your proposal first time round and second time - and thinking that would give you some insight is just crazy. What if it did show increasing temperature over time - would that demonstrate global warming ? No of course it wouldn't. If it didn't show that, would that invalidate global warming theory ? No, of course it wouldn't. Its ludicrous. One location on one date over 100 years is 100 data points. Its a nothing. Make that 10 different locations. Not just your back garden, but your friends up the road and some of their friends. That is still only 1000 data points. For individual locations, on a specific day. That is called "weather" variation, not global warning and climate change. And heh, with global warming and climate change, some places are probably going to get colder and wetter. Better make sure you don't pick those as your specially self selected locations.

So now you are beginning to concede that perhaps that isn't sound and so not what you meant. So it needs to be over many places and dates. Oh, look, that's precisely what scientists have been doing for the last couple of decades, but churning through huge amounts of data, from large number of places, with more computing power than you will ever be able to muster. 

Here you go, here is some data that has been visually rendered: climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/  Its from NASA. Its not about a single location (Cape Canaveral anyone?), but rather its on global temperatures. Gives quite an interesting graphic showing the temperatures around the globe from around 1880. No doubt some of it has to be by extrapolation since there wouldn't have been measuring stations at every possible location on the planet. 

I've done no personal checks on whether they have used 'accurate' data, nor whether their extrapolations are valid. But since there are literally 10's of thousands of people working in this domain peer reviewing work, strangely I'm not sure I can meaningfully contribute to that analysis. However, I'm sure if you look at 100 years worth of temperature measurements from Greenwich for precisely March 15th - or perhaps the 16th would be better - you'll be in a good position to either confirm or repudiate it. 

There was another one I saw today/yesterday about artic/Antarctic ice area (actually it was in the economist today I read it). There is shed loads of this stuff out there. But since I'm not in a position to go measure the ice myself I'll obviously disregard it - its bound to be bogus. 

That may or may not be true now. I simply don't know. But, we definitely would have needed far less, and therefore have done far less damage, if it wasn't for the sentence that you've highlighted above. 

look at your silly contradiction .. "i simply dont know"..... "but we definately"..... we  will need oil and gas for 25 yrs... if you think we can manage without oil and gas.. then tell me the alternative.

I don't see anything silly or contradictory. 

I don't know how much longer we will need oil for. I have not researched that topic. Given the repeated inaccuracies in your previous posts, I'm not prepared to take your word that it's true. 

Surely it's crystal clear, even to you, that we would need less oil if many had not been fooled by the oil industry's purchase of "false science" as our progress towards a no fossil fuel future would have been more advanced. 

I don't see anything silly or contradictory. 

I don't know how much longer we will need oil for. I have not researched that topic. Given the repeated inaccuracies in your previous posts, I'm not prepared to take your word that it's true. 

Surely it's crystal clear, even to you, that we would need less oil if many had not been fooled by the oil industry's purchase of "false science" as our progress towards a no fossil fuel future would have been more advanced. 

we need less oil do we... how about gas? will we benefit from less gas?.. 

Whether we will need oil for 25 years, or a different length of time, is irrelevant. The fact that we would have been better prepared, and therefore would have needed less oil, if we had accepted the fact of man-made global warming earlier is surely incontrovertible.