You say this as though you have made some sort of cogent point by asking your stupid question. In review, you are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You apparently don't even know the difference between science and mathematics. Previously, you pretended that you somehow spoke for all the scientists in the world and insisted that all scientists somehow believe in your weird cycle of physics violations. That was a simple matter to debunk, although your scientific illiteracy renders you unable to fully understand the explanation. One has to wonder, however, why you ever believed that you somehow speak for "scientists" in the first place. Now, in your inability to distinguish science from math, you are claiming that all scientists believe in a math error. This too is a simple matter to debunk, but owing to your mathematical incompetence, you are not able to understand this explanation either.
The work being done on global temperatures is not only being done in the US.
There is no work being done on "global temperatures." One has to wonder why you believe that there is. Are you claiming to speak for this set of imaginary people doing this imaginary work?
Other countries are doing the same research in our finding the same results.
There are no "results." There are no countries doing any such work. Are you claiming to speak for these unspecified "countries"?
The data, research and results are all audited and peer reviewed.
ZenMode Error: You mentioned "peer reviewed." This leftist buzzword gets your argument summarily dismissed. "Peer Reviewed" has nothing to do with science; it's a publishing term, and you know this.
On top of this, there isn't any "
The Data," nor is there any scientifically valid research, and as mentioned above, there are no "results." This entire topic is one of statistical mathematics. The fact that you believe it is a matter of science is your problem. In all of this, you are describing hopeless attempts to calculate the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within a usable accuracy (statistical mathematics) because such is not possible given humanity's current means (technology + resources). This is why nobody is doing any of the work you preposterously claim is being done.
Just out of curiosity, and for a few laughs, ... who do you imagine is somehow "auditing" anything ... and are they "auditing" the imaginary work being performed by the unspecified "countries" or the imaginary "results" from the imaginary "research." What form does this "auditing" take? Is it a guy in a lab coat and a clipboard who says "Nope, do it over!"
Do you really think that you and the other two climate change deniers have discovered things that no scientists around the world has considered or taken into account?
This is all you have, i.e. the pretense that math is somehow science, and that you somehow speak for the world's thmart perthonth.
Considering just how important this topic is to you, have you ever considered how much of your own confusion you could eliminate by taking a few courses of statistical mathematics at a local community college? Of course it will completely obliterate your
Global Warming faith, but you will be FREE from your mental enslavement! Your religion is a shitty one and you really should ditch it the first opportunity that presents itself, and some statistical math courses would go a long way in that effort.
Do you believe that spacing and number of temperature stations was not considered as part of the research?
No offense is intended, but I understand that you are particularly uneducated. You lack academic acumen and are desperate to be a thmart perthon. You do everything humanly possible to role play a thuper-thmart thientitht because you believe that is the only way anyone will give you any respect. I also understand your chagrin when you encounter educated people who recognize that you haven't the vaguest clue about what you speak and that you adopted a religion that promised to transform you into a thuper-thmart thientitht just by BELIEVING what you were told to believe without question.
As such, the answer to your question is that no,
you never "considered" spatial bias, temporal bias or any other error-inducing factor because you don't have any grasp of statistical mathematics. You were warned of the dangers of pretending to speak with authority on topics of mathematics when you are incompetent across the board. You, nonetheless felt that preserving your faith was of a higher priority and that perhaps you could circumvent all the mathematics by pretending that math is science.
Would you like to know how you fared in that regard?
Do you think that no scientist doing the research or doing the peer reviews is aware of the laws of thermodynamics?
I am aware that
you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, and you only speak for yourself.
"Breaking news! Three posters on justplainpolitics.com have unraveled the truth about climate change!"
... and are providing you all the correct answers for free. An occasional thank you would be nice.
