Blame Climate Change

No comment.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference".

Actually its pretty easy to tell them apart just by who says what.

It's the idiots who know nothing about what they are arguing about who have the problem telling them apart.

No comment.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference".

It rained last night here in Mesa. Does that mean I should be building an ark?

Do you think you need to build an ark and if so you probably need to explain your concerns further otherwise you look like a fool for having made that assumption given the circumstances you equate it to.

So yes. It's pretty easy to tell who's the fool and who's not in a debate if you know the rational reality of the subject matter.

And thanks for demonstrating that so efficiently.

No, the first fool is basing his assumption that climate is determined by a single WEATHER event.

The second fool, you, seem to not understand the statement I made.

Never mind, it's hopeless, but then I already knew that.

BUT that weather event is relevant to that regions climate and every mathematical model used to represent and define the working range and limits of that climate and every other climatic model that uses any data from that region and its weather patterns as well.

To say it's irrelevant is like saying trees are not relevant to defining a forest.

Now you're trolling me.

Nowhere did I ever say it was not relevant. Don't put words in my mouth!

A single event is weather. The sum of all the events over an extended period determines climate.

It must be really lonely all alone at the top.

Eh he's probably getting cabin fever....

I spent 5 days in SW Minnesota in January.

You've got to be bonkers to choose to live there year round.

Summertime? Sure!

I live in Texas, winter happens on a Tuesday.

I know, right?

I think they changed the day to Saturday. The frickin' temp outside is dropping one degree every 15 minutes. It's a tempest out there.

Summer versus winter in Minot, same location?

Actually I have been outside quite a bit despite the way below average temperatures the last two weeks.

I've moved more snow in the last two weeks than I did for the last 4 winters combined.

Just so long as it wasn't the same snow, you're good.

Three farm yards with ~1/4 mile long driveways plus livestock feeding areas. Been over them at least 5 times now trying to keep up with what falls and what blows back in. Even hit the neighbor's driveway and yard once while I was out as well.

It's almost starting to feel like a real job at this point which totally ruins the fun of it for me.

Hang in there. July's just around the corner.

I thought your neighbor was a douche, just as likely to take insult as be appreciating from any neighborly favor. Did he move? Or has he ungrinched recently?

I live part of the year (summer) in Northern Ohio and part (winter) in South Florida. I am always amazed (wink) by the number of people from Minnesota and North Dakota that have moved to South Florida as soon as they graduated from school.

What of cryogenics engineers? They go farther south in summer, to Antarctica.

I thin you set your standards of defining trolling pretty low if that is all it takes.

As far as putting words in your mouth, Just trying to make you sound smarter!

And yes it gets a bit lonely up here. I keep trying to bring others up to my level apparently they can't handle the heights or the climb to get here!

Do ypu remember what a cubit is?

Ya gotta know about cubits if you're going to build an ark.

It is an ancient unit of measure referred to in a book written a long after the "great flood" of which the book speaks.

I had no intentions of ever building one.

Well, if you ever change your mind, here's the guide that I use.

I'll invite you for the keel laying, if it ever happens.

For a second there I read it as 'keel hauling.'

That won't be so bad if the boat is still upside-down while laying the strakes.

Learn what 'no comment' means. <unsubscribe>

aint sayin nuthin.!

Learn the difference between weather and climate.

I don't use twitter or facebook.

Could you offer an explanation on which temperature's got broken and where.

I've noticed that records get broken all of the time.

Does this mean that the the earths crust will burn off next summer or

The 2nd ice age will start next winter ?

How is this a meaningful comparison?

Why not compare with Venus' temps, or Mercury's - or Pluto's?

This doesn't make any sense.

My understanding by listening to SCIENTISTS here a few weeks ago in PBS NOVA explained in detail exactly what causes change in the global warming-global cooling. First off, they said that roughly every 100 yrs a melting of the ice occurs. More than what it has now. It is a cycle which cause the atmospheric pressure to make such a change. Global Warming is mad-made MYTH. This is not just a few scientist but NUMEROUS from various different agencies across the WORLD. Where are right now in a global cooling and have been since early this past spring and this summer was not very hot, or had you recognized that. But you will always have that debate of difference where there is money to be gained from it. If you would have watched this you would probably understand it better and not just what is reported on the news media, or listen to what some politician is saying. Go to the source and make it a reputable source and then you will understand what makes this world turn. Funny how only 10% of the world is occupied and yet we have destroyed the resources for the rest.

You're wasting your time. You have to realize the majority of members here that visit this site multiple times a day are cranky old men that are no longer relevant in life as they achieve little or nothing in the real world anymore so they've been relegated to a keyboard and a screen for a sense of purpose.You really shouldn't expect an open mind from one that closed off years ago.

Then there are those who are too short sighted/stubborn to understand the difference between a weather event and global climate change.

That group appears to be more mature and willing to look at the larger view than the deniers.

What is that saying, denial is not a river in Egypt.

Discussing things only serves to entrench the ostrich's heads more deeply into the sand.

And then there is those that talk about a "global climate" which is nothing real, which would be defined as it can be -40 deg C or plus 40 deg C; all in one day at any time and it can be above and below and while we are at it, it rains, snows and there is sunshine all at the same time. What a variability. It would be hard to find no change in this system. All this talk about climate change without a foundation on what the variability is is just nonsensical.

But then branding people "deniers" is facetious if one himself has merely repeated words of propaganda which shows a denial that screams to heaven!

Which link do you want? The one where the greenhouse effect is debunked or the one where it says that the atmosphere acts like a blanket?

Propaganda? I scoff at your words!

Again, your opinion is just that. Your opinion.

At least you do not argue about the most obvious misconception of the "global climate".

And yes its propaganda. Not my opinion alone.

Beware the onlookers....!

I had doubts about using that term, although there is such a thing.

It just varies by region.

Its simply called climata or better climate zones. To make it global one needs a lot of mathematics with no added value because its meaningless.

Ok, got it.

Oh, come now. CR4 provides a valuable public service in this regard. It keeps us cranky old geezers off the streets lobbing suppositories at passing cars and shoplifting in the Depends aisle at the local super.

I know our police chief here certainly appreciates it.

What a loads of bullocks. If you have not noticed where this goes then I wont tell you. Big Oil is replaced by big the expensive partially useless greedy so called renewable energy industry.

Um. Just check the $ invested in big oil. Then tell me what "renewable energy industry" company can match it.

Has Solarcity turned a profit yet?

<Snark On>

Yup, big money in that green industry.

<Snark Off>

No - but it does appear that there is where the stock market is going. They finished a solar field just outside my town that will supply electricity for 100,000 houses. It does appear if you do pull up Solarcity and Vivint and a couple of the other solar companies that they are turning a profit. I like the idea and my next house will be converted to solar energy just so I don't have to put up with the ridiculous cost of energy bills. Had it on a house in Garland Tx and I saved a ton of money on my bill for heating up my hot water heater with 4 kids and 2 adults in the house. That was in the mid 80's. The old saying - "you've Come Along Way Baby". There are a lot of scams that we have set in on claiming that "the little green box" that hooks up to your electric panel supply will save you money (WHICH IT DIDN"T). Or the thin sheet of insulation that they have used on space ships that is about 1/8" thick will deflect heat back into your house applied on top of regular attic insulation will reduce your electric bills (WRONG) OR the heat pump that goes inside of your hot water heater that cuts down 47% of your electric use for heating (WRONG). ALL SCAMS!!!!!!!!! But I can vouch for the solar power I did have DID SAVE ME MONEY. We did get suckered into the others though at the tune of $6000. (previously mentioned). Live and Learn.

All I can say is, "Buyer beware." Know what you are getting before you buy.

At the time I wrote that, Solarcity had posted a loss for the quarter. I know in my home state, the Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) have lost their value. This has taken away at least one incentive for installing solar, thus further reducing sales revenue for solar installers.

First off all we need to invest in energy. Our whole live depends on the things we created and the energy has to drive it. No energy no civilisation the way we know it.

So yes there is a need in investment beyond any doubt. The question is why we try to destroy what is there instead of do the due diligence in adding complimentary parts of "renewable" green energy???

And if solarcity has not turned a profit even when it is highly recommended and subsidised then why pursuing in the first place? Yet we abolish the energy we rely on by false claims and rubbish science. There is nothing green in the renewable energy market. It is just another part of human industry.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022916/worlds-top-5-alternative-energy-companies-fslr-nee.asp

Further research shows that the oil companies are actually the ones investing heavily themselves.

Couple points:

1. Makes the loser the benefactor
2. Takes away the issue of looking for a benefactor
3. means energy companies will remain in the energy business
4. maybe because they know this industry best?
5. maybe they remain flexible regardless of the political environment?
6. maybe they are clever?
7. There must be money in it otherwise they would not do it

You can snark at it, but to what side does the table turn now?

Seems it goes to the same side with the public losing because they still think the atmosphere is a warming blanket.

But if it was we would not need one, right?

Have enjoyable Happy Holidays!

My comment strictly goes to answer those who posit that greed and money drive scientists to fake or skew data or to deliberately misinterpret results to further claims of climate change. There really isn't any evidence to prove that.

I'll acknowledge that oil companies are investing in renewables. Again, that doesn't disprove climate change, nor does it point to greed as a motivation for scientists to make false claims!

We do not need to disprove climate is changing. I was more worried about our sanity if it was stagnant.

We have proof that the Northern hemisphere has seen some warming. We will see some cooling. This is called natural variation. You know of ice ages and you know of warm periods.

The call is on science to find out if there is something none-natural happening. But it seems impossible with the ongoing interference of politics and unscientific claims of a few or even a climate panel that does not do own research. How convenient. So they can spit there poison but would not be responsible?

Scientist can be easily motivated to base there research on false foundations. In fact a lot of "science" is based on or around the fact that there is a "global warming" or now "climate change". I can hardly find basic research on the physics and if a warming due to just CO2 is even possible. The Greenhouse effect is just a theory, defended heavily and why its not falling is just a mirror on how the society wants it to be. But its a straw man to make a claim about CO2. We are far away from understand our natural processes. The ice ages are as mysterious as they were unless you believe CO2 has something to do with it. Good luck with the explanation of the previous cycles where mankind had no input.

When I looked into the greenhouse theory history I found that it was done in search of the ice age mechanics. Bad luck it seems it does not pan out. But nice try.

Talking of this, the motivation for scientist might be less than greed but a hope of the big find. Can you deny the desire to be useful, to be better, to be the one?

Do some research on the basis claims and you will find that house will crumble. There is some posts on CR4 that are worth reading.

There is no need for "false" claims, if the scientists involved are too obtuse to see the forests for their next year's research grant. Sorry, not acceptable as proof to the contrapositive.

Even if mankind somehow is managing to have a measurable effect on climate change, no one knows how much of a change we are talking about or when it will take place.

According to what was being preached when I was in high school 45 years ago, all the coastal areas of the world and many islands would have been under water for about 30 years by now. That simply has not happened.

One supervolcano event could do far more to change the climate than all of mankind's driving, all the world wars, and air travel combined.

I feel that some are also missing the interesting point that renewable deployments keep increasing because the price of power produced that way keeps coming down, and is actually competitive with natural gas fired electric generation now.

After Jan. 20th there will be no need to discuss the issue.

The Emperor will decree that climate change is a liberal plot and outlaw the use of the word.

All weather related study that does not align with the Emperor's thoughts will be discontinued, and anybody in government that participated will be summarily shot.

Come on, Lyn! Tillerson will bring him around on the whole climate change issue.

We just need better deals when it comes to climate change. We all but have our climate change issues figured out here in the U.S., so now it is time for the other countries to pony up and pay the piper for their "evil" emissions. I can't wait until "The Emperor" charges the Swiss a huge penalty for all those cheese making cows, even the laughing cows. What's my carbon footprint? Depends on what I just stepped in in the back yard...LOL.

Relax, buddy, it is all going to be OK, trust me.

Oh, I trust you.

You're not the one I'm worried about.

It's all the new alligators coming into the swamp, that was going to be drained!

Not a chance of paying off the debt with all the leeches who will find tax loopholes to put it in their own pockets.

And if the loopholes need to be made big enough to drive a tank through, there is NOBODY who will question them.

Air pollution, which is not imaginary, will continue to rise with each new guting of some anti-pollution control that big oil says isn't needed.

Coal miners will be getting black lung disease too because we've just GOT to mine more coal! And if Billy Fred doesn't want to dig 20 tons today because he wants the dust controlled, Bubba will gladly do it.

We're screwed.

Tax loopholes to put their own taxes paid back into their own pockets?

Like government giving me social security and I should be thankful, after paying in for the last 47 years?

Presuming that taxes paid is governments money - please. Understand the (short) history of Federal taxes in this country. Benefits of government collecting and spending our tax money versus benefits of legitimate companies spending and developing research. What did happen to tha Solindra money? It was physically transferred to someone and then bankrupt. Money was not burned up, its in someone's pocket.

Take the scientific approach to studying increasing federal tax and actual (!!) benefits in energy. US has much cheaper petrol than almost any country in the world. But you claim these companies are only evil and greedy.

"Like government giving me social security" is a completely ridiculous statement.

You are confused.

You say: "But you claim these companies are only evil and greedy."

No! The people who run them and Wall Street leeches are evil and greedy.

Companies take on the personalities of their leaders and investors.

Take a look at big pharma's profits vs research spending as opposed to advertising, paying Dr. to prescribe their brand and tell me how noble they are.

Government used to fund HONEST medical research. Then Congress cut that money and gave it to businesses in the form of subsidies and tax breaks and loopholes.

Why do you think so many companies base their businesses off shore. TAX BREAKS!

That is why a movement exists to "drain the swamp", and change the corporate tax structure, to bias the advantage back to American soil, and put Americans back to work.

I agree with you about the so-called incestuous relationships between Big Pharma, and money somehow appearing the medical professional's back pocket. That needs to stop. It interferes with the Hippocratic Oath, IMHO. A physician's No.1 concern should be what is good for the patient's own outcome, and not necessarily his. All organizations tend to become dysfunctional in relation to their original mission statements over time, so perhaps now is a good time to reexamine what we want in this country, and how we will go about getting delivered to the people. This nation needs to always be about the people, of the people, by the people, and as Mr. Trump has stated, "It is not about me, it is a vast movement consisting of the American people, I am just your voice, your messenger."

Let the messenger listen to the American people, and take action upon their voices, and we will see a much better result in the coming four years.

Drugs, again?

You Texans seem to hate doing business with "furiners". Well, except maybe to chop cotton.

Don't forget the trade deficit that can go very wrong if Stupid pisses off China any more, too.

Drill baby drill! Shake, baby shake!

Earthquake Shakes Oklahoma Oil Storage Hub : The Two-Way : NPR

Oklahoma Earthquakes Are a National Security Threat - Bloomberg

Middle Easter oil won't cause major earthquake damage in the USA.

Fracking? Shall I trust you that we won't do more harm than good by drilling for more oil than we need?

Drill and produce. There is thing called the global oil commodity market. We should make a dent in it, not them in us. Americans are living the dream backwards. It is time mama ran over the dad-gum train, not the other way around.

China needs to shut up and sit down. They are getting very pushy, and it is not attractive to commerce. They need to get out of the South China Sea, and this one China crap, is just that, crap. I am not afraid of China. They are Paper Tigers.

"You Texans"

Now, now. That's like saying everyone whose name is 'Lyn' always says "You Texans." I reckon there's even some Texans named 'Lyn,' maybe even a few saying "You Arizonians."

Besides, I only live here to be near my teenage daughter who lives with her mother. I'm from Colorado myself.

I have kin in Lubbock, Brownfield and all around west Texas that I like to "debate" with about present policies, on which we do not agree.

So, since James lives near ground zero, he is included in my "You Texans" salutations.

It's all good, kinda like arguing with two brothers I never had. I only had five brother-in-laws (two in law enforcement) to argue with. My dad would argue with one of my uncles, then change sides when another uncle would show up, just for the joy of it.

"pretty common knowledge for a long time" means, some people think it.

Some people think that smoking is not bad for you. Tobacco companies can produce studies to prove it.

As I used to tell kramarat, for every factoid you can dig up, I can dig one up that refutes it.

So, again your opinion is...........................................your opinion.

That's the first thing I was going to ask, name these "key scientists", state their agenda and name the government agencies and what their agenda is as well.

Be careful what sources you use for the info. Seems we have a fake news issue lately.

Keep in mind that my original statement was that greed is an unlikely motive for scientists to sound the alarm for climate change. I really don't hear any good motives for being alarmist about it other than that it might be real!

So you have never heard of "the paper chase"? That is where virtually every college and university professor is occupied with publishing something worthy of continuing their grant money. Sometimes this could lead to so-called sensationalist science that is not worth a fruit basket.

"Sometimes this could lead to so-called sensationalist science that is not worth a fruit basket."

Sometimes?

It doesn't happen often. The priority for most post-grads is the degree, not sensationalism. I'll note the case of the cold fusion research of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in 1989? Look how quickly there claims of "excess heat" were quickly proven unrepeatable. This is how the scientific community works. Sensationalist claims rarely make it past peer review. And there are plenty of peers willing to review research!

Oh NEL, you forgot to mention the re-trials were basically a witch hunt to keep them from getting the Nobel Prize. The prescribed deuterium loading on the Pd were not followed at all, all the re-tests at CIT, and MIT failed because loadings were in the low 0.80's, or even as low as 0.75 in one case, and the requirement for XSH to be produced is 0.895-1.0 (or even higher if possible).

In fact, a scientist is more likely to make a name for themselves refuting a sensationalist claim than supporting one. No early scientist is willing to risk their career writing a paper that later is refuted. If anything, scientists tend to be too conservative, which is good.

I don't see the social and political influences on science and scientists as a 'good thing'.

I don't think there is a net benefit for scientists evaluating any particular scientific inquiry as conservative or radical/progressive, sensational or reassuringly mundane.

Social and political influences on science serve only to distort or detract from clear discovery and insight.

#24
Take no prisoners.

We are so intent on crushing "the other side" that compromise has no place in any discussion.

We need another Tip O'Neill.

“It’s easier to run for office than to run the office.”

Yes, the art of compromise appears lost, but once cooler heads in Washington prevail, things will not appear to be, nor will be as drastic as some paint them now. Really, things are going to be fantastic. You will see. Try to keep an open mind, as I know you can do.

No one is ready to completely toss out the baby just because the bath water is now a bit cold and maybe aromatic. It is time for a change of the water, along with some of the regular players in that swamp, and reload. Lobbyists wield too much power, too much sway in Washington. Some say nothing gets done without them, but I disagree. Most of what gets done, gets done in spite of them.

Do some research into who really writes the laws for our country.

You will find that:

1. Every member of Congress spends about 50% of their time out of their office fund raising(Because it is illegal to do it in office)

Congress Spends More Time Dialing for Dollars Than on Legislative ...

Call Time For Congress Shows How Fundraising Dominates Bleak ...

Why Do Congressmen Spend Only Half Their Time Serving Us?

How Much Time Do Congress-Members Spend Fundraising?

Lobbyists and staff write the laws with most members of Congress weighing the product as a result of dollars produced by the lobbyists in relation to whom the law benefits. Voters give no money to Congress. Voters get no benefit from Congress.

Those cooler heads will screw the rank and file and not give it a passing thought.

How many of them actually ever had a real job?

Any go to public school?

Really, as I said, I hope you are right but I am in fear for our future.

Nothing I have read about any member of the incoming administration make me think we will be a better country in four years.

I may put money in stocks, for awhile, because I see who will be heading the economy and business and I see no stopping the runaway train for about two years. After that, depending what/who the coke inspired twit does to insult various world powers and provoke them. He really is insane.

Then there are all the problems with "soft" money. Maybe it would be better to make all fund-raising activities illegal if done in a direct manner, and only allow one action committee per candidate. Congress and the POTUS could allocate reelection funds for each Congress and Senate seat, but hold a tight lid on that. I still believe that Congress needs to be on the same health and retirement system as everyone else. No ifs, and no buts, and no candy, and no nuts.

Then maybe only the statesmen would show up to serve.

And maybe these folks could focus just a little bit on the people's business.

Really? You don't know? How do you support a claim without knowing exactly who you follow and who and how many times they have been called out for being questionable to outrightly wrong on the issues and data your vary side uses to support their claims?

Climategate 1 and 2 give some pretty solid examples of exactly who was on the lists and in bed with whom else and who wasn't because they shared their data and openly expected it to be reviewed for flaws and to this day are still held in high regards for their scientific openness regarding their work.

Name some.

'Climategate' - FactCheck.org

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the ...

Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later | DeSmogBlog

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Climategate 2.0: Denialists Serve Up Two-Year-Old Turkey

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the ...

Climategate 2.0 Shocker: It's Underwhelming! | Climate Central

I haven'the read all of the links you posted yet, but the first two are far less supportive of the idea that 'there is nothing to Climategate' upon close inspection than the title lines would suggest.

If you think that I harvest links that only support my position you are wrong. Read on.

That is true!

I have seen you post links completely counter to your stand, made up for and against your stand, and some that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand as well which very well supports the assumptions that you go by title only when making links and not relevancy or content by any stretch of the imagination.

Again?

Thank you for your critique.

I happy to see that you have admitted that my posts are fair and balanced.

Yes, They tend to do everything but support your views.

You are obsessed with always having the last word, aren't you.

Even if you are unable to support your position with anything but empty words.

Yes and regarding my persistent nit pickiness about all the warming having a when and where factor that's behind it this is worth a quick review.

Seems that the vast majority of allthis statistical temperature gain comes form the vast largely uninhabited and uninhabitable polar regions of the planet that are obviously largely uninhabited and uninhabitable due to the being too cold and desolate to support life to begin with.

NASA Planetary warning animation. ~1880 - present. The where factor!

Seasonal Temperature trends are not symmetrical. The when factor!

NASA 2015 seasonal CO2 concentration animation. 'When and where factors' dang near makes it look like seasons and locations play a huge role in things.

NASA article on who cleaning up the atmosphere might have made things worse. That's not the kind of information some people want getting out.

NASA Ocean deep water temps not rising as expected. 2014 data Dang it! The deep water won't play nice either.

No warming for 18+ years. Questionable science site chatter because I wanted to add it.

Where: Yes, it's colder there. So what's the point?

When: A decade or so? It's C-L-I-M-A-T-E not weather. A decade does not define C-L-I-M-A-T-E.

"'When and where factors' dang near makes it look like seasons and locations play a huge role in things." Yes, it's called weather.

"That's not the kind of information some people want getting out." Why not? "Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970." 30 years?

"The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005," Really? 10 years?

18 years?

Damn, that weather is tricky.

I'm growing bored.

It being colder there and warming up affects the overall planetary data set the 'Average annual mean temperature value' the believers use to make their proclamations with to say that everywhere is warming up when in fact the majority of the planet that is habitable has done little to nothing the whole time.

So a decade or two does not define a climate yet the believers side scream about how their all encompassing 'Average annual mean temperature value' has risen over that time period based on weather events that have happened in specific areas and not everywhere as they want everyone to believe their data point number suggests.

As for the aerosol information do you think they want to admit that the very thing they fought so hard to eliminate may very well be the primary driver behind what they are so afraid of now? IF I was on that side I wouldn't want that data getting out because it would make me look like just maybe I don't know half the crap I scream I know everything about near as well as I proclaim to and that maybe I really do need far more scrutiny on what I say and proclaim.

So is 30 years of trend part of climate change or not? You and most everyone else on the believers side seem to waffle back and forth on timelines all the time regarding whether or not they support work against your stand.

You say 20 is not enough yet 30 is (unless that 30 covers an event that is contrary to what you support) or that 30 is from a location that's weather events in that time frame doesn't work to your views either. Then it's just long term weather anomalies and their locations are irrelevant to regardelss of what influence they hold in how you're defining number and terminology is generated.

So from that what I get is location only counts if it supports raising the 'Average annual mean temperature value' but not if it lowers it. Habitability and overall value to life is irrelevant.

Same with weather patterns and locations. They are only relevant to climate data if they support the 'Average annual mean temperature value' rising but not lowering.

Same with timelines, 20 years is not enough and only counts as weather, unless it recent and support a climate change claim but not if it goes against it. 30 years holds similar as well where location is what makes it relevant to things but not if that locations weather trends in that time frame goes counter to the belief system.

So what are we suposed to use as reference points then if one year or 20 years of weather in any location is irrelevant to the climate yet it is the very basis of what the overall climate data is built on?

Given that, when a certain group starts screaming that 2015 was the hottest year ever as proof of global warming do we sceptics then point out that it means nothing since one year's weather is not climate and has zero relevance to overall climate and trends and even the last 20 years don't count either towards climate trends since that how the believers side defines weathers relevance in their own terms of beliefs?

What I get is apparently by your own believers side definitions weather trends any and everywhere for the last 30 years don't count yet every bit of data pertaining to climate trend analysis is based on something that doesn't count by the climate change followers own definition.

Hmm.... Methinks you be making things up or are pulling numbers out of your own asses to support your side being by your own definitions nothing you say is inadmissible to use as data points that has happened in the last 30 years. It's all just weather doing what weather does and the statistically derived numbers can't count.

Now regarding you being bored with this you could always just not post stuff that you know you will get picked apart on by those who are not the least bit bored with doing such.

You've wasted a lot of time, again, and have not proven anything except the fact that you are totally convinced you can't possibly be wrong.

Oh, I forgot that you're a denier. It makes sense now.

What makes me a denier or more importantly what is your definition of a denier being the word as you seem to equate it to doesn't fit whose who you place it on.

Am I denying that the climate or the planet is not changed in some way someplace for various reasons? Have I ever said I don't believe in climate change?

The way I and millions of others see it, we are sceptical of what's being told to us by the believers side being as we see the sources of the data and actual 'as things are happening' real life evidence it's not adding up to anything like what they have claimed for the reasons they claim it does.

Many of us here have been asking/expecting/pushing you to dig up any facts regarding the things we call you out on so that you can actually support what you say yet you rarely if ever delivered anything that wasn't more of an embarrassment/discredit to yourself and your stance than anything anyone else could have refuted you with.

"Actual facts" are readily available to both sides of any argument.

The problem becomes, who decides which side's facts are the actual "actual facts".

You can bluster all day about your actual facts being more/better than my actual facts but the actual fact is only our offspring will suffer the consequences.

The "many" of you can claim superiority of your facts all day long but the fact is we're just anonymous members of an anonymous forum with nothing but our egos at stake.

As another president once said, "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it [will forever live with the consequences of our actions]. can never forget what they did here"

So since you can't support your views with facts then everyone and what they say from both sides has no factual value then?

As far as history goes has anyone before us ever gave a damn about what they did good or bad and who followed them? I say with pretty solid certainty not one of my ancestors gave a flying fig about what they did and how it may someday affect my life or the lives of any of our family and those around us in their day yet somehow we are all here and doing well and consider the world we see now to be the very definition of normal and acceptable just the same.

Kinda wild how people naturally adapt to whatever world and conditions they are born into and take how ever it is to be the standard of normal even though everyone who has gone before or that will come after them would disagree isn't it?

Since you can't support your views with anything but bluster, and your ancestor's "burn it" attitude I see where you get your "don't give a damn" attitude.

You may not realize that things have changed since your ancestors slashed and burned whatever they pleased.

Well, coal and oil weren't in vogue more that about a hundred years ago,unlike your ancestors so how does anybody know what the long term effects will be.

We've got a better idea of what pollution/climate really is like today and until NASA is shut down by the yellow cheeto, actual facts will be gathered.

Air pollution is a given that even tire burners can't ignore. If that isn't a clue, well I just don't know.

Actually if you can manage to recall I and others have supported my/our views in so many ways so many times on this topic with you in specific over time that if you can't remember any of that having happened by now or remember it far differently than to what did take place maybe you need to go see a neurologist about an obvious and considerable medium and long term memory and perceptions of reality issues.

To sum it up if you have likely forgotten or remembered it wrongly, you get OT'ed to bits every time for dragging up either irrelevant or nonsensical or outrightly obviously fake news links every time just as I see it already happening with what you have posted here now, I have yet to read any of it ad weigh in on it myself, but going by past experiences I have strong suspicions given the OT votes already accumulating that more than likely it probably goes more against you than supports you like most all of your past stuff ever has.

So what should I expect?

Fake news sites?

Irrelevant to the subject at hand sites?

Sites that outrightly disagree with your views because you never bothered to read them in depth?

Something new but as equally condemning of your views?

I'm just guessing given past experiences with what you tend to link to here being I for one can recall these past debates and how they have played out every single time.