Global Warming?

I just read a USA Today web site about a new and much ballyhooed propaganda piece on so-called "global warming." Here On the USA Today web site the graphic shows that the average temperature in the year 670 was 57.3368. And in fact all the temperatures are show with 6 digits. In the year 640 it was 56.6186 degrees, according to their study. Right away I was suspicious. As a man who majored in physical science in college I know that you have to have extremely accurate data to report six digit accuracy. I would be very surprised if they have any actual data accurate enough to distinguish between 56 degrees and 57 degrees in the year 670, especially since thermometers wouldn't be invented for close to another thousand years. History of thermometers. The chart says that the data is estimated from ice core samples, which give only a very isolated single point approximation. Extrapolating that to a 6 digit statement of global temperature is scientific nonsense.
My second concern is that their graph does not show the "mini ice age" which gripped the earth from the 12th century until the 16th century. The mini ice age eliminated the wine industry in England and eliminated the Viking colony on Greenland, among other world wide effects. In the 1970s, after 4 decades of steadily declining global temperatures, a popular topic was "The coming mini ice age." All the dire projections in the 1970s, based on half a century of declining global temperatures, were that we could expect another 500 years of significant global cooling. The graphic data did not show the 500 year mini ice age, and neither did it show the half century of declining global temperatures in the first half of the 20th century which precipitated the "coming ice age" predictions of the 1970s. There is something amiss in their report, or at least something left out, maybe it leaves out inconvenient truths.
On close inspection of the reported data I find no accounting for global climatic events such as volcanoes. In 1816, for example, there was a "year without summer" and several years of global climatic disruption caused by a volcano named Tambora in SE Asia. A volcanic eruption in 1815 caused widespread famine across Europe, Asia, and parts of America that pushed political changes in several countries as local peasants blamed their governments for the climatic problems. The "year without summer" continued to cause record cooling for several years. Its not shown on the data presented to support the latest hysteria, "global worming." The data also doesn't show the effects of many other global climatic events caused by other volcanoes or meteors which happen every century or so. A skeptical reader such as myself wants to see the data include all the data, not just that which supports their latest conjecture. Bob began to ask himself why they had left out the inconvenient truths that aren't in their published data.
The bottom line in their notes on their temperature chart contains an explanation of their "cooked" data, "This chart uses a combination of scientific estimates, actual meteorological data, and computer simulations." Lets look at what they are saying. Scientific estimates are what we called "WAGs" or "EWAGs" when I was in college, or "Educated Wild Ass Guesses." While an EWAG, or "scientific estimate" may sometimes point a researcher in the right direction, it is never a valid research result or scientific finding. A publication that claims to be based on "scientific estimates" is no better than political garbage. Then they claim to have used some actual meteorological data in their report, and that's nice, but what about their last piece, "computer simulations?"
Bob is also not without some expertise in computer simulations, which should never be confused with facts. A computer simulation is a high tech way for an artist to paint a picture of his biases and previously assumed outcomes. Computer projections take the persons WAGs and extrapolate them to six digits in multiple graphic colors. Any of the input guesses can be changed, and they are only somebody's guesses, and the projections come out to completely different results. When they say that their results are "based on …. computer simulations," they are telling us that they have nothing to report but their wild ass guesses, which are based more on their political positions than on science.
This report and other publicized hysteria about "global warming" are not scientific fact, and in fact are scientific nonsense. For example, they political film "Inconvenient Facts" makes a big deal about Antarctic sea ice being reduced while ignoring the fact that Antarctic land ice has never been thicker. The rest of the "inconvenient facts" have been debunked as well, but you won't learn about it from the hysterics. None of the so-called scientists who play Chicken Little over "global warming" have an explanation for what caused the little ice age of the 12th century, nor why it ended half a millennia latter. If their "scientific estimates, actual meteorological data, and computer simulations" can not explain actual recorded climatic changes, then it provides very little confidence as a predictor of climate.
Finally, Bob is not convinced that global warming would be a disaster even if it happens. Warming is probably a boon where a historic mini-ice-age led to global famine. A study published some years ago by environmentalists at UCLA concluded that global warming would cause more rain in many desert areas and longer growing seasons in many cold regions. For people who freeze through negative temperatures all winter in North Dakota or Moscow, Russia, an increase of 5 or 10 degrees would be welcome, and the "computer models" promise the most warming in these areas.
In conclusion, the hysteria (a well-gendered term) over so-called "global warming" is political double talk without scientific basis. Even if it happens it will be 99% caused by natural variations in solar output and such things as volcanoes. The hysterical media and so-called scientists (they aren't) ought to be told to take their report and cram it where the sun don't shine. The report ignores sunshine anyway so that would be an improvement.