In the 1970s, there was real concern that the land-based temperature records (LBTR) were inaccurate and deficient, so satellites were launched to obtain a more accurate picture of the world’s temperature.

Today, we have four ways of measuring the world’s temperature: two independent satellites sets, balloon radiosondes, and the LBTR.

The outlier is the LBTR, which is subject to corruption of the data by things such as the urban heat island effect, poor locating and coverage of thermometers, land use changes, questionable adjustments to data, use of thermistors as against mercury thermometers, and many more problems.

The best ways we have of measurement show that the warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2010, 2015 - all “El Nino” years.

The letter has more of the “arguments from authority”, but this is a poor way to lend credibility to oneself.

NOAA, as well as NASA, in the USA are claimed as authorities. Is RT Walker aware that NOAA is currently under congressional investigation as its records do not accord with the satellite data?

Is RT Walker aware of comments by a group of 40 ex-NASA employees, including scientists and astronauts?

Perhaps the writer would care to check NOAA’s records, as they show old data is constantly being adjusted (cooled) to enhance a latter day warming trend.

Why?

In Australia, BOM was the subject of an inquiry until the new minister, Greg Hunt, became concerned about the possible impact on BOM’s reputation and quashed the inquiry. Never mind that reputations are built on accuracy and reliability.

RT Walker: It is now up to you to respond to the issues I have raised.

YOUR correspondent RT Walker, in his letter of January 22, shows perhaps the understandable gullibility of the people who are fed this unrelenting drivel on global warming.

I have heard ad nauseum of late the quote that 97 per cent of scientists agree with the uninformed warmaholics.  

If these people did some research on the so-called survey of scientific opinion, they would find the lies that show these figures as "authentic".

One of the surveys was sent to 10,000 scientists online by two researchers at the University of Illinois.  

Of the 300 that deigned to reply to the loaded questions, 82 percent answered yes.

I am not surprised.  

I would have answered positively myself.  

The first question was: When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?

The second question asked was: Do you think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?

Many, like myself who lived through the dust bowl era of the 1930s, would answer "yes. but not significantly".

I think the dust storms and the extreme heat of the times, which were far hotter than now, could have been exacerbated by human activity.  

Land ploughed in the south eastern part of America for agriculture, and the rabbit plague and overstocking in central Australia, were contributing factors in the extreme weather experienced at the time.

These climate events had nothing to do with changing carbon dioxide levels.  

Additional CO2 is having no measurable effect on the weather.