Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[Boomboom521]

Where is there a market demand for the elimination of gasoline powered automobiles airplanes and fossil fuel?

Where is market-driven freedom of choice involved in government run & mandated Healthcare with no access to private individual health insurance?

Your platitudes are belied by the current Democrat Socialist agenda.

Where’s the market-driven demand for tanks?

I’d make the argument that exploding healthcare costs, due to the deferred cost of unpaid bills in hospitals due to uninsured patients and lack of preventative care has created a demand for more people to be properly insured. The same happened with car insurance, but laws had to force people to pay for the insurance.

 

[Boomboom521]

Fine. Your opinions are certainly valid yet also commensurate with ass holes. Everyone has one and most of 'em stink.

Chuckle chuckle

 

[atlkvb]

Where’s the market-driven demand for tanks?

I’d make the argument that exploding healthcare costs, due to the deferred cost of unpaid bills in hospitals due to uninsured patients and lack of preventative care has created a demand for more people to be properly insured. The same happened with car insurance, but laws had to force people to pay for the insurance.

Government mandates without free choices is not the market.

Tanks are Government ordered weapons systems to protect the country. They are not available on Car Gurus like a Toyota Corolla.

 

[atlkvb]

Chuckle chuckle

Your opinions are valid. They're just not automatically correct or above everyone else's. That's what I meant behind the quip.

 

[Boomboom521]

Government mandates without free choices is not the market.

Tanks are Government ordered weapons systems to protect the country. They are not available on Car Gurus like a Toyota Corolla.

Government ordered systems to protect the country — yep

 

[Boomboom521]

Your opinions are valid. They're just not automatically correct or above everyone else's. That's what I meant behind the quip.

Except someone who doesn’t the basic facts about an issue

 

[atlkvb]

Government ordered systems to protect the country — yep

Yup. Tanks are not part of our free market choices boom. I have nothing competitive in my product line up to offer you if you're after one.

 

[atlkvb]

Except someone who doesn’t the basic facts about an issue

What's more basic than our primary source for heating and cooling the planet boom?

Where do YOU suggest we start as a "basic" fact regarding that?

 

[Boomboom521]

Yup. Tanks are not part of free market choices. I have nothing competitive in my product line up to offer you if you're after one.

 

[atlkvb]

You're too smart to see it?

 

[Boomboom521]

What's more basic than our primary source for heating and cooling the planet boom?

Where do YOU suggest we start as a "basic" fact regarding that?

How our atmosphere interacts with it

 

[atlkvb]

How our atmosphere interacts with it

That's certainly a start, but it doesn't effect our surface temps as much as the Sun. It is important, but we don't control it either.

 

[Boomboom521]

That's certainly a start, but it doesn't effect our surface temps as much as the Sun. It is important, but we don't control it either.

Yeah, I’m spent.

 

[Pospecteer]

Where’s the market-driven demand for tanks?

I’d make the argument that exploding healthcare costs, due to the deferred cost of unpaid bills in hospitals due to uninsured patients and lack of preventative care has created a demand for more people to be properly insured. The same happened with car insurance, but laws had to force people to pay for the insurance.

Actually, there is a global market for tanks...Russia is leading in the innovation. Some military experts believe that tanks still have a major in warfare, even if it the battlefields are becoming more urban. We need to catch up...

And your argument is 90% wrong. Bad debt is an issue, but they are able to write it off and most bad debt is in DSH hospitals which the federal gov. gives them grants/reimbursement adjustments to offset the bad debt. Countyroads89 won't like this, but the payor mix is what drives reimbursements in hospitals.

 

[atlkvb]

Yeah, I’m spent.

It's what happens when you go in to debate with your mind already made up.

 

[atlkvb]

What's the p value in the trend, and does it fall within the margin of error? Pretty simple request.

It's the simple questions that elude his more erudite mind.

 

[mule_eer]

OK but what's the heat source?

The sun. Your point is silly though. If I put a furnace in my house but don't insulate the walls, I lose more heat than I would if I did insulate. The sun is the furnace, but the CO2 in the atmosphere is the added insulation.

 

[mule_eer]

My house thermostat reads 68 degrees, but the back bedroom which has full sun is at 75. What is the temp. of the house? How do I calculate the real temperature? Now, let's try and do this with the world. We have sun flares, storms, the world is dark/daylight or a mix. By not taking into account all of these, it will throw off thousands of data points, etc, by varying degrees. We are talking calculating 1/10ths of degrees in temp change and conflating it for 10-1000 years. This is not knowing that the boiling point is 100 and freezing is 0!

I love to swim, one thing I can tell you that real, is hot/cold patches in the water. One second the water is 70 and I take two more steps and it's 65, how does that happen? Did you ever think that changing currents might have an impact on rigid (within 5 meters) temperature gauges?

Just this year, Buffalo recalculated snow totals because they realized that the past data was not done by professionals. They realized that some of the data was some guy going out in the snow with a yard stick and recording the inches. He also did not use the same spot or even the same yard stick...

These are simple examples of potential bad data issues, we won't even get into how they weigh the data to calculate for an entire planet.

Stop peeing in the pool.

 

[mule_eer]

So they can keep polluting while we send all of our money to them?

No. We develop cleaner technologies. Then we sell it to them. This is literally a build a better mousetrap issue.

 

[mule_eer]

That is not even close to proving that climate data is accurate. The world is not a controlled environment, it is ever changing. Thank you again for proving my point...Climate data is not collected in a lab, it is collected by climate enthusiasts (lets not not even get into who these people are and how they collect data) who can't duplicate one day from the next. It is impossible to prove that climate data is accurate, just add a p value in the estimates (which would indicate that any real change in temperature is within the margin of error)....look at the bright side, maybe we are underestimating our impact, that would surly make you happy.

Of course the world is not a controlled environment. And how are you defining climate enthusiasts? NOAA has weather stations all over the place. Other organizations do the same. We get temperature estimates from satellite observations as well. Also, I think that's what you are griping about with people cooking data for this. The sensors degrade, and some data is adjusted to calibrate those readings.

 

[mule_eer]

China IS developing, and they are being held accountable.

Most are not advocating that the US abandon a capitalist system.

I think China should fall out of the "developing" pool. Given the size of their economy, they are not on the same level as Zimbabwe.

 

[Boomboom521]

I think China should fall out of the "developing" pool. Given the size of their economy, they are not on the same level as Zimbabwe.

I think the accords differentiated between these two different levels of “developing”

 

[Pospecteer]

Of course the world is not a controlled environment. And how are you defining climate enthusiasts? NOAA has weather stations all over the place. Other organizations do the same. We get temperature estimates from satellite observations as well. Also, I think that's what you are griping about with people cooking data for this. The sensors degrade, and some data is adjusted to calibrate those readings.

Please quit trying to tell me what I think, and stick to facts...I am 100 % certain that the data is not accurate, and even the authors know it, they just gloss over it.

In the long post that Boomer posted, they talked about using 61 data collection points for the entire world! Do you really think that 61 data collection points can accurately capture the TRUE temperature of the entire world? Temperature disturbances is the end result of climate change correct?

So far various posters have brought up the following and you have yet to disprove any of them, you just talk around them, they all impact our climate but are never incorporated into models:

1. Variations in ocean temps due to ever changing currents. Some believe the warmer water is shifting ocean currents...but it is never takin into account when collecting the data.
2. Solar activity (not just the 11 year cycle)
3. Wind current changes, it changes all of the time. Research is showing turbines are actually causing climate change...
4. Natural occurrences (volcanos, hurricanes, methane chimneys at the bottom of the ocean (we are now just starting to understand them)
5. Yours-collection devices going bad, data transmission errors
6. Human error in reading/transcribing the data
7. Shifting of the magnetic core
8. Changes in the North Magnetic pole. The pole is shifting every year.
9. Shifting in the tectonic plates
10. Atmospheric cover (clouds formation/ozone layer ebb and flow)
11. Research bias (when you get paid in grants, you better be making history)
12. Industry bias (yes, energy companies are diversified, and they have money invested in green energy) Does Elon Musk promote climate change?
13. Forest fires (some are accidents, others are started by ass*oles). In fact, in a previous discussion, someone tried to prove that air quality was decreasing under Trump, but when you overlaid the charts aligned with forest fires, the years that had higher air pollution also had major forest fires near urban areas...
14. Another poster said that steam is also a concern when using LNG as in vehicles...but we never talk about all of the hot springs that naturally produce steam. Never mind that steam is much cleaner than auto emissions, we just need to go to renewables...

On top of that, I have yet to see anyone tell me what the p value and margin of error was in any of the studies...we just assume that they took data and extrapolated it to account for the entire world and yet they did not calculate a p value or margin of error. We do not have the technology or the resources to take an accurate world wide temp. in a reliable way.

 

[Boomboom521]

Please quit trying to tell me what I think, and stick to facts...I am 100 % certain that the data is not accurate, and even the authors know it, they just gloss over it.

In the long post that Boomer posted, they talked about using 61 data collection points for the entire world! Do you really think that 61 data collection points can accurately capture the TRUE temperature of the entire world? Temperature disturbances is the end result of climate change correct?

So far various posters have brought up the following and you have yet to disprove any of them, you just talk around them, they all impact our climate but are never incorporated into models:

1. Variations in ocean temps due to ever changing currents. Some believe the warmer water is shifting ocean currents...but it is never takin into account when collecting the data.
2. Solar activity (not just the 11 year cycle)
3. Wind current changes, it changes all of the time. Research is showing turbines are actually causing climate change...
4. Natural occurrences (volcanos, hurricanes, methane chimneys at the bottom of the ocean (we are now just starting to understand them)
5. Yours-collection devices going bad, data transmission errors
6. Human error in reading/transcribing the data
7. Shifting of the magnetic core
8. Changes in the North Magnetic pole. The pole is shifting every year.
9. Shifting in the tectonic plates
10. Atmospheric cover (clouds formation/ozone layer ebb and flow)
11. Research bias (when you get paid in grants, you better be making history)
12. Industry bias (yes, energy companies are diversified, and they have money invested in green energy) Does Elon Musk promote climate change?
13. Forest fires (some are accidents, others are started by ass*oles). In fact, in a previous discussion, someone tried to prove that air quality was decreasing under Trump, but when you overlaid the charts aligned with forest fires, the years that had higher air pollution also had major forest fires near urban areas...
14. Another poster said that steam is also a concern when using LNG as in vehicles...but we never talk about all of the hot springs that naturally produce steam. Never mind that steam is much cleaner than auto emissions, we just need to go to renewables...

On top of that, I have yet to see anyone tell me what the p value and margin of error was in any of the studies...we just assume that they took data and extrapolated it to account for the entire world and yet they did not calculate a p value or margin of error. We do not have the technology or the resources to take an accurate world wide temp. in a reliable way.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522

GISS is within .09 degrees F

 

[Boomboom521]

Please quit trying to tell me what I think, and stick to facts...I am 100 % certain that the data is not accurate, and even the authors know it, they just gloss over it.

In the long post that Boomer posted, they talked about using 61 data collection points for the entire world! Do you really think that 61 data collection points can accurately capture the TRUE temperature of the entire world? Temperature disturbances is the end result of climate change correct?

So far various posters have brought up the following and you have yet to disprove any of them, you just talk around them, they all impact our climate but are never incorporated into models:

1. Variations in ocean temps due to ever changing currents. Some believe the warmer water is shifting ocean currents...but it is never takin into account when collecting the data.
2. Solar activity (not just the 11 year cycle)
3. Wind current changes, it changes all of the time. Research is showing turbines are actually causing climate change...
4. Natural occurrences (volcanos, hurricanes, methane chimneys at the bottom of the ocean (we are now just starting to understand them)
5. Yours-collection devices going bad, data transmission errors
6. Human error in reading/transcribing the data
7. Shifting of the magnetic core
8. Changes in the North Magnetic pole. The pole is shifting every year.
9. Shifting in the tectonic plates
10. Atmospheric cover (clouds formation/ozone layer ebb and flow)
11. Research bias (when you get paid in grants, you better be making history)
12. Industry bias (yes, energy companies are diversified, and they have money invested in green energy) Does Elon Musk promote climate change?
13. Forest fires (some are accidents, others are started by ass*oles). In fact, in a previous discussion, someone tried to prove that air quality was decreasing under Trump, but when you overlaid the charts aligned with forest fires, the years that had higher air pollution also had major forest fires near urban areas...
14. Another poster said that steam is also a concern when using LNG as in vehicles...but we never talk about all of the hot springs that naturally produce steam. Never mind that steam is much cleaner than auto emissions, we just need to go to renewables...

On top of that, I have yet to see anyone tell me what the p value and margin of error was in any of the studies...we just assume that they took data and extrapolated it to account for the entire world and yet they did not calculate a p value or margin of error. We do not have the technology or the resources to take an accurate world wide temp. in a reliable way.

Do you think these concerns aren’t addressed within the scientific community?

 

[Pospecteer]

[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 2606813, member:

Proof is in the pudding:

Please read the source document and let's discuss in an honest fashion. This pretty much sums up my concerns, even the way they tried to correct the variations in estimates. This document was cited as the source document for the summary you posted- and it was published in Nature Magazine and not in an academic setting.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02147-w

The disclaimer:

The authors’ approach of comparing groups of proximate-ship measurements is conceptually similar to that used in identifying problems in the land temperature record, whereby each weather station is compared with its neighbours to find and remove localized biases6. The method offers an innovative solution to the lack of good ship metadata during the early twentieth century and provides a major advance in our understanding of historical ocean measurements.

This study, and recent major updates to the SST record at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre7, provide a useful reminder that large systematic biases might remain in our observational temperature records. Improved quantification of these biases is still a key technical challenge for researchers, and will help to address questions about the performance of climate-model simulations of the past and the role of intrinsic climate variability in historical temperature change.

 

[mule_eer]

Please quit trying to tell me what I think, and stick to facts...I am 100 % certain that the data is not accurate, and even the authors know it, they just gloss over it.

In the long post that Boomer posted, they talked about using 61 data collection points for the entire world! Do you really think that 61 data collection points can accurately capture the TRUE temperature of the entire world? Temperature disturbances is the end result of climate change correct?

So far various posters have brought up the following and you have yet to disprove any of them, you just talk around them, they all impact our climate but are never incorporated into models:

1. Variations in ocean temps due to ever changing currents. Some believe the warmer water is shifting ocean currents...but it is never takin into account when collecting the data.
2. Solar activity (not just the 11 year cycle)
3. Wind current changes, it changes all of the time. Research is showing turbines are actually causing climate change...
4. Natural occurrences (volcanos, hurricanes, methane chimneys at the bottom of the ocean (we are now just starting to understand them)
5. Yours-collection devices going bad, data transmission errors
6. Human error in reading/transcribing the data
7. Shifting of the magnetic core
8. Changes in the North Magnetic pole. The pole is shifting every year.
9. Shifting in the tectonic plates
10. Atmospheric cover (clouds formation/ozone layer ebb and flow)
11. Research bias (when you get paid in grants, you better be making history)
12. Industry bias (yes, energy companies are diversified, and they have money invested in green energy) Does Elon Musk promote climate change?
13. Forest fires (some are accidents, others are started by ass*oles). In fact, in a previous discussion, someone tried to prove that air quality was increasing under Trump, but when you overlaid the charts aligned with forest fires, the years that had higher air pollution also had major forest fires near urban areas...
14. Another poster said that steam is also a concern when using LNG as in vehicles...but we never talk about all of the hot springs that naturally produce steam. Never mind that steam is much cleaner than auto emissions, we just need to go to renewables...

On top of that, I have yet to see anyone tell me what the p value and margin of error was in any of the studies...we just assume that they took data and extrapolated it to account for the entire world and yet they did not calculate a p value or margin of error. We do not have the technology or the resources to take an accurate world wide temp. in a reliable way.

Stop being so sensitive. I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I was trying to get at what you meant about data manipulation.

The issue about 61 data collection points was a point that it was POSSIBLE to do this with 61 data collection points. NOAA has thousands of weather stations in the US alone. That's not counting sea based probes or satellites. We're also not an anomaly among other countries in that sense. Those analyses are done with very large data sets. And if you want error bars on the historic data sets, you are a google search away from that.

As to all of the variables you bring up. Those variables were always there. The magnetic pole is shifting, same as it was yesterday, 50 years ago, and 2000 years ago. Same for plate movement, volcanic activity (which has a cooling effect), forest fires, etc.

With respect to the transcribing of data, I've worked with NOAA on a weather station. It's a connected device that reports temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed, and wind direction to them in real time. That data isn't transcribed, it's stored.

 

[cam_blev]

I dont get into political arguments over this because its a science/tech problem not a political one.

E=MC^2 means that all energy that has been used by burning fossil fuels has gone somewhere. Fossil fuels are the most concentrated accessible energy source available. To think that the energy that has been release from those fossil fuels to build our civilization has not released enough energy to start changing the atmosphere enough for climate to change I find silly. At the same time to think that something can be done to capture that energy and change things yet still be able to support the world is also silly. Specifically the fact that it wont be terribly long before Africa has the largest population in the world but most of it is undeveloped and the work needed to build it up cant be completed without fossil fuels and/or nuclear energy.

 

[Pospecteer]

Stop being so sensitive. I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I was trying to get at what you meant about data manipulation.

The issue about 61 data collection points was a point that it was POSSIBLE to do this with 61 data collection points. NOAA has thousands of weather stations in the US alone. That's not counting sea based probes or satellites. We're also not an anomaly among other countries in that sense. Those analyses are done with very large data sets. And if you want error bars on the historic data sets, you are a google search away from that.

As to all of the variables you bring up. Those variables were always there. The magnetic pole is shifting, same as it was yesterday, 50 years ago, and 2000 years ago. Same for plate movement, volcanic activity (which has a cooling effect), forest fires, etc.

With respect to the transcribing of data, I've worked with NOAA on a weather station. It's a connected device that reports temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed, and wind direction to them in real time. That data isn't transcribed, it's stored.

were you there in 1880? How did they do before 1970?

This supports my concerns, and it's from climate scientists...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02147-w

The authors’ approach of comparing groups of proximate-ship measurements is conceptually similar to that used in identifying problems in the land temperature record, whereby each weather station is compared with its neighbours to find and remove localized biases6. The method offers an innovative solution to the lack of good ship metadata during the early twentieth century and provides a major advance in our understanding of historical ocean measurements.

This study, and recent major updates to the SST record at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre7, provide a useful reminder that large systematic biases might remain in our observational temperature records. Improved quantification of these biases is still a key technical challenge for researchers, and will help to address questions about the performance of climate-model simulations of the past and the role of intrinsic climate variability in historical temperature change.

 

[Boomboom521]

[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 2606813, member:

Proof is in the pudding:

Please read the source document and let's discuss in an honest fashion. This pretty much sums up my concerns, even the way they tried to correct the variations in estimates. This document was cited as the source document for the summary you posted- and it was published in Nature Magazine and not in an academic setting.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02147-w

The disclaimer:

The authors’ approach of comparing groups of proximate-ship measurements is conceptually similar to that used in identifying problems in the land temperature record, whereby each weather station is compared with its neighbours to find and remove localized biases6. The method offers an innovative solution to the lack of good ship metadata during the early twentieth century and provides a major advance in our understanding of historical ocean measurements.

This study, and recent major updates to the SST record at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre7, provide a useful reminder that large systematic biases might remain in our observational temperature records. Improved quantification of these biases is still a key technical challenge for researchers, and will help to address questions about the performance of climate-model simulations of the past and the role of intrinsic climate variability in historical temperature change.

This article also identifies that observational data in reflecting a trend is accurate within two tenths of a degree C, which allows a clear trend to appear?

 

[Pospecteer]

This article also identifies that observational data in reflecting a trend is accurate within two tenths of a degree C, which allows a clear trend to appear?

that is what the model is predicting using the new theories which they admit is novel but likely not accurate, hence the disclaimer. The data in the last 20 years is getting better, but still not accurate, but anything older than that is just pure bunk, and they know it. Not sure what the temp change is over the last 20 years but knowing that .02 degree of error is still large.

 

[atlkvb]

The sun. Your point is silly though. If I put a furnace in my house but don't insulate the walls, I lose more heat than I would if I did insulate. The sun is the furnace, but the CO2 in the atmosphere is the added insulation.

I control the furnace in your example. Insulation or not the heat source is under my control. Who controls the Sun and its thermostat?

 

[atlkvb]

No. We develop cleaner technologies. Then we sell it to them. This is literally a build a better mousetrap issue.

I don't see why if we're forced to pay for our pollution and "climate change" we have to pay for their's too?

If anything they should be paying us to help them clean up their messes! Also as I mentioned, the most egregious polluters are never asked to sacrifice their way of life or give up their Socialist leadership, or adjust their polluting ways.

Yet we are asked to surrender our economic system, lifestyle, energy sources, luxuries, and income wealth to some extraneous NGO that will decide how much we get to pollute or can buy in "carbon credits" to limit earth's oven?

It's a giant scam. None of the so called "remedies" will reduce earth temperatures one degree cooler than the Sun determines what the "climate temperature" will be on any given day, at any given moment, during any given year no matter what we do or don't do simply redistributing incomes and wealth. What the Hell does that have to do with "climate change"?

It is delusionally foolish to suggest we have any more power than the Sun does regulating or controlling Earth's climate. Even sillier to suggest Government regulating how many widgets are built and who pays for them will reduce global temperatures.

Sophistry.

 

[Boomboom521]

that is what the model is predicting using the new theories which they admit is novel but likely not accurate, hence the disclaimer. The data in the last 20 years is getting better, but still not accurate, but anything older than that is just pure bunk, and they know it. Not sure what the temp change is over the last 20 years but knowing that .02 degree of error is still large.

The increase in temperature is not always within the margin of error. NASA claims .05 in the last 20.

“Pure bunk” is a little extreme of a claim. I do however, appreciate your desire for clarification before massive policy shifts on the issue. I personally think there is plenty of evidence, besides mean temperature that correlates a warming trend, and so therefore the issue of statistical concern is a very minor issue.

 

[Boomboom521]

I control the furnace in your example. Insulation or not the heat source is under my control. Who controls the Sun and its thermostat?

JFC - you just don’t want to try to get it do you?

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't see why if we're forced to pay for our pollution and "climate change" we have to pay for their's too?

If anything they should be paying us to help them clean up their messes! Also as I mentioned, the most egregious polluters are never asked to sacrifice their way of life or give up their Socialist leadership, or adjust their polluting ways.

Yet we are asked to surrender our economic system, lifestyle, energy sources, luxuries, and income wealth to some extraneous NGO that will decide how much we get to pollute or can buy in "carbon credits" to limit earth's oven?

It's a giant scam. None of the so called "remedies" will reduce earth temperatures one degree cooler than the Sun determines what the "climate temperature" will be on any given day, at any given moment, during any given year no matter what we do or don't do simply redistributing incomes and wealth. What the Hell does that have to do with "climate change"?

It is delusionally foolish to suggest we have any more power than the Sun does regulating or controlling Earth's climate. Even sillier to suggest Government regulating how many widgets are built and who pays for them will reduce global temperatures.

Sophistry.

It more our mess, Chico

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't see why if we're forced to pay for our pollution and "climate change" we have to pay for their's too?

If anything they should be paying us to help them clean up their messes! Also as I mentioned, the most egregious polluters are never asked to sacrifice their way of life or give up their Socialist leadership, or adjust their polluting ways.

Yet we are asked to surrender our economic system, lifestyle, energy sources, luxuries, and income wealth to some extraneous NGO that will decide how much we get to pollute or can buy in "carbon credits" to limit earth's oven?

It's a giant scam. None of the so called "remedies" will reduce earth temperatures one degree cooler than the Sun determines what the "climate temperature" will be on any given day, at any given moment, during any given year no matter what we do or don't do simply redistributing incomes and wealth. What the Hell does that have to do with "climate change"?

It is delusionally foolish to suggest we have any more power than the Sun does regulating or controlling Earth's climate. Even sillier to suggest Government regulating how many widgets are built and who pays for them will reduce global temperatures.

Sophistry.

You know, one thing you need to understand; words can be employed to articulate many things, as well as multiple facets and nuances of a specific concept or idea — but most of the time, when you boil it down, the concepts being articulated are usually pretty basic.

You act like you’re above name calling - but in the above post, you just called one of the most neutral and respectful posters a fool. Slap a skirt and lipstick on it sure, but she’s still trash.

 

[atlkvb]

Of course the world is not a controlled environment. And how are you defining climate enthusiasts? NOAA has weather stations all over the place. Other organizations do the same. We get temperature estimates from satellite observations as well. Also, I think that's what you are griping about with people cooking data for this. The sensors degrade, and some data is adjusted to calibrate those readings.

We can measure the force of gravity too Mule that doesn't mean we control it.

 

[atlkvb]

You know, one thing you need to understand; words can be employed to articulate many things, as well as multiple facets and nuances of a specific concept or idea — but most of the time, when you boil it down, the concepts being articulated are usually pretty basic.

You act like you’re above name calling - but in the above post, you just called one of the most neutral and respectful posters a fool. Slap a skirt and lipstick on it sure, but she’s still trash.

So now it isn't the derrogatory names YOU call someone, it's what you "imply" I've called someone using words as YOU interpret them?

OK.

See if you can "imply" what I'm saying when I verbally express that you are the penultimate example of extemporaneously insulated propagation filled with self emolumated intellecutal constipation ever condensed into one carefully choreographed, homogenized, pasteurized, package of post modern pompousness?

Is that enough "implication" for 'ya?

 

[atlkvb]

You act like you’re above name calling - but in the above post, you just called one of the most neutral and respectful posters a fool. Slap a skirt and lipstick on it sure, but she’s still trash.

FYI, I was giving my opinion to Mule about my own particular reservations with man made climate change. I didn't address my comments directly at him, or call him names, or even say he's wrong about his own views on the subject.

I simply expressed my reservations about man made climate change to him. YOU read into that whatever fit YOUR opinion of what I said and that's fine.

As I said earlier in the thread. We all have opinions, and no one's smells any better or worse than the next. We tend to agree with those oponions we like, and disparage those we don't. That's cool too.

Not everyone's opinion is always right, except for yours of course.

Isn't that right? Your opinions are always correct?