In response to:
It would be relatively simple to accurately define a "earth heat index" on a planetary scale.
A few orbiting satellites having the correct sensors could provide a true picture of energy in vs. energy out. Over a period of time, this would reveal any warming/cooling trends. Compared to most liberal projects, it wouldn't even be particularly expensive.
Yet, none of the libs propose such a project. It's almost like they don't want to know. Half-baked, feel-good science is a religion to them, and many seem to be so gullible and simple-minded, they need to "believe" much more than the need to know the truth.
Moonbat Exterminator wrote: JR, your assertion that computing a single number for the average temperature of the planet is mathematically impossible is incorrect. It would in fact be a simple, straightforward calculation. In statistics, it's called the mean of sampling means. The weakness of such a statistic is that the enormous variability in the data far exceeds the variability in that number. Even the 90 % confidence interval would be much larger than the variations in that average, making it useless from a practical standpoint. - Al Gore Warming
Dear Moon,
I think we are talking about two different things,...
Consider also that the person who knows more about weather than most everyone else is the Weather Channel's Joe Bastardi who when asked about Al Gore's "Sandy" comments merely said, "Gore is stupid!"