Is anyone of you like me in that you don't care about data that's presented in some site that average Joe don't know about?
All those sites that's been linked to, no matter what they're called, are "distant" to me.
I know it sounds SO mainstream and perhaps ignorant but really, I almost only care about my own observations about the weather and YouTubeclips that explain things in an easy way. Like clips that shows glaciers getting destroyed or warmed up and such.
I actually had a problem with the data specifically because of the local weather. I started looking into this because I was somewhat confused by the idea that 98 was the hottest year on record for the US, well above the dust bowl era. My grandfather grew up in the depression, and his family left the dust bowl on account of it being a dust bowl. I currently live on the edge of that dust bowl now, on the farm he bought when he retired, in the same county he grew up in. I found it perplexing that higher temperatures were supposed to result in more severe droughts, considering the drought this area has been in was far less severe than it was then.
After that, my natural curiosity took over, it's a curse really, and several hundred hours later, I knew more about the subject than the scientists they poll for support. The why behind the lacking drought and other obvious indicators that the US was in a hotter than the 30's climate was explained by the discovery that they reduced old records, and corrected new ones up even though they were in urban heat islands and reading high to begin with. As the years have gone on, the obvious corruption in how they manipulate the data to fit the theory has become far more obvious, but they were already shifting the temperature trend by well over a degree in the late 90's
One of the things you have to realize is that the media, even people posting videos on youtube, are heavily biased towards the destruction of global warming even if they don't have a dog in the race, simply because of the nature of media. No one wants to watch videos of glaciers expanding, it's not sensational or exciting in any way and you'd have to time lapse footage for ten years to get the point across anyway. It also garners a lot more attention if you hype it up when storm X rolls through town, even though it's just a generic, boring ass storm the place has seen a hundred like in the last century. The flooding in the northeast of Texas a few months ago was a perfect example, it was terrible, set new records, blah blah blah. The last time the Red River flooded bad, it washed the railroad tracks out and there were fish swimming across 271 north of Paris, I drove through it about an inch below the peak flood, it was only 5 or 6 inches, and it was a good 15 feet short of the railroad tracks. That was only thirty years back, and they pretend it wasn't far worse.
Yes, Psychoak, I know you're staring at the screen in disbelief and probably facepalmed so hard the neighbor heard it
I reserve face palming for the truly depressing, like whatever the fuck is wrong with my last post. I tried to fix the quotes but they weren't broken. 
Edit: Apparently copying someone's post is including hidden metadata that fucks the quote system, I had to use the quote button and copy the quoted text into my reply and nuke my original post to get this one to behave...
