Why?

Because of science.

Huh?

Science is, primarily, about doubt. Science is useful in destroying the commonly-known but absolutely wrong notions we have about life, the universe, and everything. Science tells you that when “everybody” or “all” is used in a sentence, you’re about to hear some utter bullshit. Science tells you that common knowledge is so common, and usually wrong. Everybody once knew that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around it, and that God created it in seven days.

Everybody knows that man has changed the Earth and warmed it.

Well let’s think about it. What is our evidence? It is a database of temperature readings. That database is controlled by two small groups of scientists, one American (NOAA) and the other British. A database needs “control” because in compiling statistics, there are methods required to ensure the statistics don’t lie. Some of these methods include throwing data out, correcting data, and interpolating between diverse sources of data. A sum total of about 12 people on this planet are in charge of this process.

And their jobs and professional reputations are on the line.

We already know that NOAA has modified the dataset in ways that support the political hypothesis. And we already know the Brits fabricated data from whole cloth and covered it up until discovered via an email breach. And the Brits even said WHY they did it! To preserve their particular version of a status quo.

But aside from these shenanigans, my view is that the worst problem in climate science is the interpolation of data between the older and newer datasets. The older ones were taken in hundreds of locations, post offices, train stations, and city halls across America (and elsewhere in the world). These were recorded by well-meaning postmen, stationmasters, and clerks … in pencil … in a book.

The new datasets are taken in literally BILLIONS of locations at EVERY point across the globe by impersonal satellites at all hours of the day or night and recorded directly to computer databases.

Given that Climate Science claims a less than one-half of one degree celsius rise in temperatures over the last 150 years … is there NO POSSIBLE WAY that the interpolative procedures are the cause of such a result? Well, scientists have actually been debating that particular problem … in academic papers … and are STILL debating that problem … in academic papers … and there’s no clear answer.

So, even though I recycle (my recycle can is always more than twice as full as my garbage); and we have efficient cars, furnaces, and lighting (almost all LED!); and even though I am an avid outdoorsman who supports environmental and nature causes; and though I eat probably 70% organic in my household and use all the most eco-friendly products throughout … and I wear Birkenstocks … I am a Climate Change Denier.

Science is the religion of DOUBT. And I DOUBT that these guys have settled the issues with their database in sufficient fashion to make broad descriptions or prescriptions about the environment. And until they can give a non-cagey, non-political, non-self-serving answer about INTERPOLATION, I will remain a climate change denier … even though my natural tendency is to go along with scientists … I cannot do so in this case because THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

Wrong. Only unique concept allows scientific analysis.

Your fixation on unique concept appears polemical. Anthropogenic climate change is a science based hypothesis supported by massive amounts of observable data. The data has been collected from the late 19th century to the present. The proliferation of data points is a more recent phenomenon beginning in the 1970s. At the same time computer simulation and modelling has given us the means to project trends and the models over the last three decades are convincing. What unique concept has to do with the original intent of my posting is beyond my understanding. If you are convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax then maybe you need to argue in this manner. But unique concept has nothing to do with scientific evidence to support a hypothesis.

If there is no unique concept then no discussion makes sense.

I’m not clear on what your arguing for in this statement. “Unique concept’ is not a part of the discussion. The point of the article is the abiding lack of trust in science that appears to abound in much of American society.