[@Heat]

No amount of skepticism will seem healthy to ideologues who hold their mythology as the one truth. It will inevitably be portrayed as conspiracy because to question "fact", arbitrarily chosen facts rather, flies in the face of what has been indoctrinated into people. I am not surprised you call any opposing source at all, a spread of which I chose for a reason, "unreliable".

First and foremost, when dealing with scientific data anyone remotely familiar with it will tell you to always use real data and leave nothing to modelling, [i]especially[/i] when you are venturing into the unknown. The more points you have of accuracy, the greater and more accurate your results will be; when you start "adjusting" everything, especially with a motive in mind, your process [i]should[/i] be called into question. Forgive me, but I have zero trust for these agencies who were constantly being pushed toward representing climate change by the previous administrations because it fit their ideology.

Second, Snopes, really? You are going to call my material into question, then refer to Snopes? I do hope you are aware of what is going on over there with them. The so called "fact checkers" are being fact checked themselves and interestingly enough, it almost seems as if they have a motive themselves. But I digress, two can play at that game, but Snopes is a whole new level of incrediblity. I will not even bite on that one being remotely accurate; might as well cite PolitiFact too while you are at it.

As for the Heartland institute being funded, my point is summarized as, "Yes, and?" I am not claiming to trust them, but anyone who remembers Climategate remembers that the data was not matching what was being reported. This is not some great secret. What matters [i]more[/i] to me in that reference is your reaction which is summed as "Opinion pieces do not matter if I do not like them."

I, of course, am obligated to admit I chose it on purpose to demonstrate that, but that is only a component of the point. The real driving point of that article is to show what lengths people will go - to include the theft of private documents - to prove climate change is "real". More or less, that outright discredited their argument to me that in order to "win", they sent an activist to commit a crime and ultimately found nothing about Heartland of interest; the same event transpired as a big nothing with Donald Trump's tax returns as of late.

The argument of "those people have no climate expertise" falls on deaf ears with me for several reasons, not the least of which was their agency being hijacked to perform that mission above all others - recently reversed by President Trump - and that if they, who are deeply involved in the workings and data gathering of that industry by proxy, have no right to an opinion about their stake in it, who has any right at all? If you want to apply that logic, please do - I would love to tell those who do not own firearms their opinion about them is moot or the keyboard warriors that screech at military action to step off the matter until they join an armed service.

To the point again, yes, I read the letter:

[Hider=Letter][quote]March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,[/quote][/Hider]
[i]That[/i] is how you operate an agency, by stating "Please do not put out unproven, unverified, challenged data as absolute truth. It isn't. We need to be impartial about this because we are an authority on the matter and people thus regard us as the end all whenever we say something. We are concerned because of the activist position you have taken over our agency."

If you want to keep talking data sets and fraudulent application of them, let me phrase it this way. Do you legitimately trust anyone who has that many holes in their data that they fill them in and adjust the numbers to what they [i]think[/i] it should be? Personally, I call that very bad science. If you are so uncertain in your data and haven't the resources or area to be legitimately accurate, as in monitoring more of the entire planet effectively and cross referencing each point to other available sets, even incomplete, should you really be making claims at all? The honest answer to that is "No, go continue to evaluate and expand." rather than "Panic! The entire Earth is heating up because humans! This has never happened before! Coastal cities are all going to drown! The ice caps are gone!"

They way I view this issue is that it is bad science. It is [i]feels good[/i] childishness that has not the gall to commit to its duty in the field, one that can take countless years, and would rather react reflexively or worse, preemptively at the cost of everyone else. Again, see my prior opinions on solutions as to how to legitimately mitigate climate concerns. Mankind is a component, but not [i]the[/i] component.