Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Monday, November 26, 2018

Of Course Trump Hates Science

Unchecked climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars and damage human health and quality of life, a US government report warns.

"Future risks from climate change depend... on decisions made today," the 4th National Climate Assessment says.

The report says climate change is "presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth".

The warning is at odds with the Trump administration's fossil fuels agenda.
Trump probably had no good way to block a report that is required by law, but he had it released the day after Thanksgiving as a way to try and bury the story.

Which is why I'm posting this when I am.

Between refusing to do anything about rising greenhouse gas levels to demolishing the relationships that the United States has had with other democracies, together with cozying up to tinpot autocrats, Trump may be the most effective anti-American terrorist in history.


dinthebeast said...

Let's see, the most deadly and destructive wildfire in California history, that is, the one that took that distinction away from the fire that came within two blocks of my sister's house last year, has been declared 100% contained after the first real rain in 220 days slowed its progress last week.
The climate has changed.
We can perhaps reduce the effects it will have with the action we take right now, but there's no realistic denial of the change that is already here.
Usually it's difficult to definitively link climate change to the phenomena it is likely causing, but here in California it's not.
The changes in temperature and rainfall have created a more favorable environment for pine beetles, and huge areas of previously healthy timber are now dotted with dead, dry, snags that burn like kindling, and readily transfer a brush fire, which we actually need, into a forest fire, the likes of which we are seeing dozens of every damn year now.
My dad worked for the US Forest Service in northern California for thirty years and it just didn't used to be like this.
I fought on a couple of forest fires when I was young, so I have been thinking about this and paying attention to it for pretty much my whole life.
Climate change was the first reason I had for wishing W had not made it to the white house, because I felt back in 2000 that we didn't have the time to waste on eight years of an oil-centric government, and now all of the things I was afraid would happen are coming true, one after the other.

-Doug in Oakland

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Few billion dollars of GDP and a few thousand deaths over 80 years? Yeah?

I think Jenny McCarthy caused more damage than that, single handed, and in less time.

bmq215 said...

Yeah, NJT, what's the big deal? I mean it's not like the 2017 fires cost an estimated 180 billion in economic losses or anything, right? Heck, that's only like 1% of GDP. What's that growth target we keep trying to hit? Oh right, 3.3%.

B said...

BmQ: THe fires are mostly caused by mismanagement of the forest.

They didn't get so out of control 50 years ago, when it was just as dry. Why not?

Your "climate Change" is more likely caused by the suns's magnetic field


But if we were to accept that hypothethesis, then who would make all that money on CO2 reduction and "scientific" research? Which is why the folks at CERN are being ordered to not talk about their experiemnts.

CO2 Driven "climate Change" is mostly a lie. As is blaming the California fires on Climate Change.

bmq215 said...

B, can you cite a better source than President "rake the forest" for you forest-management assertion? Your statement is at odds with what my forestry friends are telling me.

After suggesting that precipitation patterns haven't changed over the last 50 years you offer an alternate explanation for why the climate has changed. I think it would make more sense to the reader if you stuck to one or the other.

Speaking of which, I'm not sure you thoroughly read the source you posted. It appears to be someone talking about how someone related a rather wild theory to him over herring and beer one day. The link contained within that is a rather weak set of correlations between a 10-year satellite dataset and a single ground station in Russia that concludes with some rather fantastic logical leaps. "Magnetic" is in fact never mentioned in either article. Overall I consider this to be rather spurious evidence.

And of course the "appeal to conspiracy" is one of the weakest arguments. In fact, here it detracts from the two other competing defenses you had already advanced.

Which raises the real question: why did you reply to me with a spirited bout of climate change denial in the first place? I merely gave a couple numbers for the economic cost of the 2017 fires. No mention of climate or causes at all. Really an odd reaction on your part.

dinthebeast said...


-Doug in Oakland

CenterPuke88 said...

B., the forest wasn’t even burning in a great majority of the recent fires. What was burning was more trees plains, open scrubland and grasslands created by discredited forestry practices like thinning and clear cutting, practices endorsed by Donnie and his cronies. A thinned forest is proven to burn faster and hotter than a natural forest, yet the R’s demand disproven forestry practices, and then replant the destroyed natural areas with monoculture forested areas that also burn faster and hotter because of a lack of diversity that keeps the multilevel forest (that slows, rather than speeds fires) at bay.

As for cllmate change, you tossed it in there, the numbers are irrefutable, Donnie’s own study says so, but he doesn’t believe it. You own Donnie, you and the R’s are destroying the sole planet we inhabit, deny all you want, the future will judge you harshly.

B said...

AH yes, Climate Change caused by Republicans.

so, are you riding a bicycle, eating only food you grow in your backyard, living without electricity or fossil fuels, etc? Or are you a hypocrite who believes in Climate Change caused by CO2, but still lives a lifestyle crating it?

And to make it simple: Cosmic rays cause aerosols. Strong magnetic field by the sun deflects more cosmic rays. fewer aerosols, fewer clouds, more warming 'cause more sunlight.. So far the evidence is much clearer and the hypothesis holds up better than your "CO2 causes warming" which can't ever seem to fit the models.

As for the forest and grassland detritus burning, there is more of it cause it is never allowed to be cleared nor is it allowed to burn off until it cannot be contained. Even the California government says that. I'm not sure what your sources that tell you otherwise are smoking, but it is at odds with reality.

And, despite your cries, the numbers show no warming for over 20 years. Reality, you know. Actual temperatures taken in a scientific method, not the data that has been "adjusted" that the press shows you.

CenterPuke88 said...

My God, B., you’ve really fallen for all that crap? You’ve gone and started believing the sales department of Exxon/Mobil and Trump Inc, may as well get an InfoWars account, dude.

As for your strawman, pish posh.

dinthebeast said...

B: No, not caused by the Republicans, only aided and abetted by their policies.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

CP: Yep, that's me. Not believing what the media tells me to believe, just facts and real data. Of course, I have the training to understand it, as well. Do you? Can you look at it with an open mind and understand why I am a skeptic? If so, I'll gladly email you some data.

Of course, it appears your source of info is places like the New York Times:

Believe what you want to believe. I'm still waiting for you to show me how you live the word, and produce none (or as little as possible) of that CO2 that you claim is causing that terrible Glowball Warmening...are you setting an example? Or are you like AlGore?

CenterPuke88 said...

B., my house is smaller and very efficient, my driving utilizes stops along the way to minimize additional trips and mileage. Since I work a job that requires non-standard hours and days, it is not practical or possible to use public transit or car pooling. I make other decisions to support reducing fossil fuel usage, and encourage renewable energy usage. Your strawman of demanding complete avoidance of CO2 emissions is getting annoying, and you know it's bullshit.

Now, for facts...have you looked at the area where a number of the recent fires occurred? Not a forest in sight in a number of areas, just grasslands caused by overlogging, clogged with fuel due to the removal of trees, approved by the same Department of Interior that complains about protecting trees and trys to blame the State for the BoI decisions.

You assume I believe the media without looking at data, sorry, I don't. My decisions are built upon my research on available data from a number of sources, both left and right wing, as well as neutral. Now, it makes me wonder when 3% of the scientists have any questions about global warmning and you start parroting Donnie's and Exxon/Mobil's stupid lines about it being false. Just what research are you doing into why there are some 32 experts saying somthing is true for every 1 that says it might not be? You seem to be wilfully closing your eyes and plowing ahead, the crash we are heading for is gonna be epic. If you have children or grandchildren, I suspect they won't be thanking you.

B said...

CP: Where is the warming that they claim? Have you actually LOOKED at the temp data for the past 24 years?

Have you looked at any of the models that fail to even come close to meeting the actual temperature data? If you find one that does meet the observed temps, please, let me know.

All the "scientists" you talk about are getting funding for saying that there is Global Warming...what do you think would happen to their livelihood if they say "all is well, nothing to see here"?
Since you claim to have been studying the temp data (or other data, you don't specify), please, feel free to show me, here or via email, temperature data (or other data)(that has not been "adjusted", mind you) that supports the claim of global warming. Oddly, when I actually look, there is none. I'd be glad to be convinced. All I can find is raw data that shows no warming and "adjusted data" that, oddly, is ALL "adjusted" UPwards by about 2 degrees C...None is ever adjusted DOWNwards. Odd that.

Since you've been doing all that research, please show me something. Seriously. I'd like to see it, if you can provide it.

dinthebeast said...

The idea that scientists who produce research that is against the interests of the most profitable human endeavor in history are motivated by money (and all conspiring with one another about it) is as far-fetched as the outright denial that it is happening.
It's happening.
I don't need the media to tell me that.
My dad worked on forest management for the US Forest Service for thirty years.
I grew up in the Six Rivers and Trinity national forests.
I could write you a fifty page paper on forest mismanagement, and it would not address the wildfire problems we have now, which are more development problems than forest management problems. They call it the urban-wildlands interface, and what it means is that wealthy people have houses in areas where the fuel load builds up and makes it dangerous for any kind of burning to occur, removing one of my dad's management tools entirely when we have year after year of reduced or non-existent precipitation. This year it was 220 days without .1 inches.
Then there are the pine beetles I wrote about above. Have you seen what the pine and fir forests look like now in California? It's equal parts terrifying and disgusting, and like I said, was entirely absent three decades ago.
To argue in such bad faith for nothing but ideology and naked greed is evil, and that's precisely what our government is doing right now.
To actively resist even trying to fix the mess we've made is evil you don't often find outside of Republican politics.
Maybe you really can't fix stupid, but nature really does bat last.

-Doug in Oakland

CenterPuke88 said...

B., try reading the actual data and understanding it instead of crackpots who spout off theories about why a “correction” in the data is certainly sign of a conspiracy instead of a sign that a flaw was found in the system gathering data, eh? No warming trend, you buy that, you’re lost...there is no reputable observation database that backs that statement.

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

CP: Is the data not "adjusted" upwards? Odd that the corrections are NEVER downwards.

Gotta "hide the decline". LOOK at the data. I have. You, apparently, have not.

D: Again, you make my point. Fuels that build are the cause of the WILDfires. IF the fuel were not there, it would be a small and fast moving grassland fire, not the holocaust that we have today. When even PG&E can't clear the areas around their power lines, you have a disaster (like we had recently) waiting to happen. I don't dispute what the Pine Beetles have done. I do dispute the claim that the pine beetles are caused by Global Warming. Fire have always happened. In fact they were a clearing force that PREVENTED the buildup. Not so today. Today you have 50 years of built up fuel that causes the incredible firestorms.

Has anyone, anywhere, gotten funding for saying that they have found no danger from Climate Change? For research contrary to the current meme? Nope. they only get research money if they claim that the end is near....and if they produce models that fail to fit current observed temp and other data. Further, those models, when fed unadjusted historical data, fail to predict current temperature and climate conditions....therefore the models are wrong. That's the way one tests a model, you know.

According to the scientists and their models of 30 years ago, we are all dead now. But we still use their models even though they fail to meet current observations.....Odd, that.

Who you gonna believe: The scientists who are paid to find doom or your lyin' eyes?

CenterPuke88 said...

Blatant falsehood. Plenty of adjustments in both directions on climate data, but deniers like you focus solely on the adjustments up. Enjoy burning the world down

Grey One talks sass said...

Since the eighties I've watched Big Oil and their minions spread falsehoods about the climate. Their misinformation campaign is very effective, hence all the climate change deniers. However, there is more than one way to observe our world.

I watched as every glacier has retreated, as documented by photographers who make their living off of pictures of the ice. This isn't a phenomena restricted to the good ole USA but a world wide event. This is scary.

I watched documentaries following polar bears to determine why they face starvation. Again, this isn't an issue restricted to the USA but is worldwide.

I've watched the habitats of insects, birds, and small mammals change. In the middle of the country I watched as the Never Summer range of mountains become Always Summer.

And then there is the Permafrost, a layer of earth which may defrost a bit but is thawing out completely now, the earth heaving as it's freed from the confines of ice.

Climate Change is upon the Earth and only the most foolhardy insist Everything's Fine. But what do I know? I believe my lying eyes.

B said...



Follow the links for data. Real, *actual* data.

The models claiming we would be ice-free in 2013 failed....spectacularly.

Of course, one can simply make up data instead of "adjusting" it. Or use badly collected and error ridden data.

I'd like to see some data where the errors or "adjustments" were downward, rather than upward. I've looked and can't find any. Feel free to provide some. Perhaps I have missed it for the past 20 years. Or not. But I'll look at it if you can provide some. I await my education.

dinthebeast said...

"Has anyone, anywhere, gotten funding for saying that they have found no danger from Climate Change?"

The link I posted above tells about some of the "dark money" funding climate research for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry and compares it to the research the tobacco companies funded in the late fifties that kept the public skeptical of the link between tobacco use and lung cancer for an extra decade, all the while their customers were dying from using the product they were getting wealthy from selling.
As a coincidental aside, the specific group he mentions are also the group who funded the acting AG to the tune of more than a million dollars when he came to DC.

So yes, they have, and you would know that if you were taking what I have said here in good faith.

And no, we don't have 50 years of built up fuel, we have ten, that's how long the extreme drought conditions have made controlled burning too dangerous to the wealthy people who have built houses in areas where fuel builds up to be used to clear them out.
My dad did that stuff for thirty years.

Another overlooked problem brought on by the extreme drought conditions is the disposal of the brush that logging generates. Logging companies can't burn it any more because their insurance won't let them because the risks of setting a wildfire are too great, even in areas with no existing structures to threaten. They can chip it, like a tree service would do, but the chips aren't what the paper mills (the few remaining ones) want, so the disposal is just another expense to add to their balance sheets, and so not much logging goes on now that isn't done by companies not owned by the likes of the Koch brothers.

And the beetles don't care whether you dispute them, they only care that the conditions are now favorable enough for them to live in areas where they previously could not, which is exactly what they are doing. Those conditions have changed, allowing them access to areas they were entirely absent from a few decades ago. Another term for those conditions is "climate" and they are living evidence that it has changed.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

Ok, let me be clearer:

Are there any research grants given to researchers using public money or university money (which is where the big bucks are) for researchers looking to dispute "Climate Change?

dinthebeast said...

Bigger bucks than the Mercers and the Koch brothers?

-Doug in Oakland

Grey One talks sass said...

I'm confused. It sounds like some folks won't accept the changes happening in front of them unless there is a peer reviewed study to prove the point?

There isn't one almighty voice from above to say Climate Change is happening; the evidence accretes like death from a thousand paper cuts. And I guess I'm not so much confused as frustrated with those who refuse to see facts for facts.

B said...

Ok, Grey One: Provide some FACTS. Show me temp data proving we are warming. Show me the glaciers never retreated before. Show me where there is less sea ice now than at the turn of the century . Show me temp data for more than 1960-1990.

Show me a climate model that, when historical data is entered, closely approximates today's climate (hint, they don't, none of them).

Show me some of those changes that are CLIMATE, not weather. Real, actual measured data. Not "adjusted" data, but real measurements.

Otherwise, you might as well tell me that the christian bible is a true and complete recitation of history. 'Cause you are taking what others say on faith and what the Media has told you to believe as truth, just like that bible. All faith, no proof.

And remember, it used to be "Global Warming" until that didn't incite enough hysteria, then they changed it to "Climate CHange" when they couldn't show any warming.

dinthebeast said...

"Climate change is already affecting U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) assets by, among other impacts, damaging roads, runways, and waterfront infrastructure. DoD is working to both fully understand these threats and incorporate projected climate changes into long-term planning to reduce risks and minimize impacts. There are many examples of DoD’s planning and action for risks to its assets from climate change. DoD has performed a comprehensive scenario-driven examination of climate risks from sea level rise to all of its coastal military sites, including atolls in the Pacific Ocean. In the Arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard and Navy are pursuing strategies to respond to the changing geopolitical significance resulting from the projected absence of summer sea ice in the next few decades."

So I guess that means the Pentagon is in on the conspiracy also?

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

D: no cite for context?

C'mon. Yer lots better than that, unless you are trying to hide something.

dinthebeast said...

It's from chapter 16 of the report this blog post is about, B. Again, information already being discussed that you've chosen to ignore.


-Doug in Oakland

Grey One talks sass said...

B - Lots of demands for data which has been cited repeatedly and you've pish-poshed away. Perhaps you are not reading for comprehension?

My view on climate change is based on more than numbers. I observe people calling into local gardening shows talking about invasive insects who are gaining ground in areas formerly off limits because of hard freezes. I'm watching native plants die off because the temps and water content they need to survive has changed. I'm watching apex predators (polar bears) starving to death because the sea ice which they depend upon is going away. I also read about how the bears are surviving, mating with their Kodiak family to the south. That's a mashup I wouldn't want to meet in a dark and scary alley!

While climate change is a disaster for the Department of Defenses (why would they address the issue if it was a nothing burger?) it's been a boon for archaeologists. As the ice retreats bodies are recovered, the latest find I read about occured in the Swiss Alps. The family finally had answers as their loved ones disappeared in the late 1800's. And that isn't the earliest find either. Read for yourself. The scientists are giddy with the information gleaned about diet and how the mummy lived and eventually died.

There are clues all around you B if you open your eyes and observe. And therein lies the rub. You are so invested in DATA DATA DATA that you forget data is a numerological representation of what is happening in real time.

As for your fixation on numbers, raw data is just that - raw. It needs parameters to focus the picture to allow humans to understand what it's saying. Without that focus all raw data manifests as is white noise.

But what would I know? I'm just an old lady talking sass.

Grey One talks sass said...

PS - everything happening to our planet has happened at one time or another in history. The warming up and cooling down is what our planet does.

What those who advocate climate change are saying in essence is we humans are speeding up the cycle. Without our help the planet (and our expected weather) could have continued as it was for centuries. Now? Yeah, changes are happening faster than models predicted. When the planet starts to move humans had better learn to adapt to the new normal or get out of the way.

As I see your arguments B - you are firmly fixed on a point. You won't move and you won't adapt. The planet will not be gentle with folks who think like you.

B said...

D: you should follow your own link: THe footnote doesn't really fis what you are saying (Number 63)


Some erosion happened on the seashore..... Like that never happened before. Something that was built in the 60's and wan't maintained and then failed....

Seriously, the footnote goes to the URL I posted. Check it out for yourself.

Grey One: Again, you BELIEVE, but have NOTHING to base it on. Just belief. And, if your really believed, you'd live a lifestyle that makes for little or no impact on that which you believe....do you own a car? Use electricity? Buy food that is trucked in? Or are you a hypocrite? Like Al Gore?
Data DOES matter. When the only data that supports a rise in temp is data that has been "Adjusted" upwards, then it is no longer data, it is fraud.

CenterPuke88 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CenterPuke88 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CenterPuke88 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CenterPuke88 said...

So Snopes took a look at this and notes that the “fraud” B. is complaining about is actually slightly reducing the warming effect, not increasing it. They also explain why the adjustments are made, but B. will dismiss it out of hand.


B., if you believe it’s a fraud, and the earth is actually cooling, what are YOU doing to fix it? Burning peat, a honking big diesel and rolling coal, coal fired heating...now can you not live that way if you believe the earth is cooling? See how stupid that suggestion is, so knock it off!

With 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2000, it’s pretty clear which way this shit is going. I’ve seen the movement in the latest and earliest frost dates, I’ve seen the winters that barely reach 32 versus those that had days at a time below freezing. Then, when it does get cold, it can get record cold for periods...the earth is a heat engine, and inputs cause results...more heat can easily cause a polar vortex as the increased circulation displaces Arctic air masses. Wanna address the slowing of the Gulf Stream B. ( href=“https://phys.org/news/2017-06-climate-gulf-stream.html“>Phys.org )? Perhaps explain the migration of tree species ( href="https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/grow-west-the-mystery-of-americas-migrating-trees”>Big Think )? I can go on, but it’s clear it’s pointless.

dinthebeast said...

B: From your link:

"What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop a plan and milestones for completing climate change vulnerability assessments of installations; provide further information to installation planners, clarifying actions that should be taken to account for climate change in planning documents; and clarify the processes used to compare military construction projects for funding, to include consideration of potential climate change impacts. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendations and explained how they will be implemented."

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

CP: Hve you read the article on the thermohaline circulation? IT says nothing of the sort. "The melting in Greenland is within the mean, but it's still above the average of what was happening 20 years ago" There is no weakening of the circulation It says that there COULD BE. not that it is.

And SNOPES? Really??

Your article on trees: Oddly, they are "Migrating" WEST, not north or south. Pretty much not part of that Global Warming" bit....

I think you are not reading the articles you use.

As for what I drive (big sooty diesel) and how I heat (wood and occasionally coal) it isn't the same as you folks who believe that we are coming ever closer to thermageddon and need to stop producing CO2 immediately or we are all gonna die (So far those deadlines have come and gone twice, yet we are still, oddly, here with little change in our climate....)....but don't change YOUR lifestyles. I don't see all you folks choosing to not use electricity and drive and stop buying stuff that is shipped in via boat and trucks and trains.... I don't believe mankind makes much difference one way or the other. It is more the sun.... and CO2 isn't the main driver (hint: Water Vapor and Methane are much stronger greenhouse gasses) and solar activity has so much effect that mankind's efforts one way or another are less than a rounding error.

D: The quote doesn't say anything except that it mentions Climate Change and suggests that DOD have a plan. It fails to mention anything like actual "Climate Change" effects that DOD should plan for..." to include consideration of **potential** climate change impacts" (emphasis mine)
Reread it. It doesn't say much, actually, if you parse for content.

Again. Show me some actual undedited, un"adjusted" data that proves what you say. You can't. 'Cause it isn't there. You can win this argument easily by showing that. Simple. I'll wait.

CenterPuke88 said...

Snopes, yes, really. Perhaps you should read the analysis.

Yes, there is proven weakening of the Gulf Stream. Quit looking for a minor item that fits your misconceptions and blowing it up into an expose on how the whole thing is false.

Your lifestyle is just as relevant as mine is...thus your dismissal of the question shows the importance of your question of me and others.

dinthebeast said...

"Again. Show me some actual undedited, un"adjusted" data that proves what you say. You can't. 'Cause it isn't there. You can win this argument easily by showing that. Simple. I'll wait. "

What would be the point? You aren't going to believe it, and it would just give you another opportunity to try and poison the discussion.
Have fun explaining this to your grandkids when they ask you about it.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

D:So because I don't believe the "Adjusted" (and ALWAYS upward data is valid, you won't bother to show any unadjusted data? Really? I think you can't show any. In fact, I know you can't find any that isn't adjusted that shows any warming.

And CP....From your own article (which I read, and you apparently didn't):
" A 2016 study suggested that while a great deal of fresh water has been discharged from Greenland, it's difficult to track what happens to it because of eddies and currents. This research concluded that most of Greenland's meltwater moves southward, and what remains of the fresh water is not enough to affect the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation"

Notice the last sentence.

Of course the article says that someday, it *COULD* affect the circulation. But it isn't. Not yet, despite the dire warning that it will happened just any moment now....for the PAST 30 YEARS. Yes, some models show that it will stop soon. But they've been showing that for more than 30 years. and they don't fit reality. Which means, like nearly all climate models, they wrongly predict climate disaster....because no one gets grants to predict that all is well. When the models don't predict reality, real scientists change (or fix, at least) the models until they do predict correctly....Your prophets, however, adjust the data to fit the models. Fraud.

Again, find a model that, when fed historical data, accurately (for whatever reasonable level of accurate you wish) predicts the conditions TODAY. You can't.

dinthebeast said...


-Doug in Oakland

Grey One talks sass said...

Doug in Oakland - Rude Pundit is one of the blogs I read and is where I get some of my climate change information. They really know how to put Science verbiage into "Captain Dummy Talk" (thanks to Firefly for that phrase). Also they are snarky and sassy as all get out, traits this old lady can appreciate.

B - I tell you what I've observed and you pooh pooh it as belief. No where did I tell you what I believe. I told you what I've extrapolated from the facts at hand. You haven't paid me to offer my beliefs, or my opinions for that matter. What I talked about is Observation with the caveat that correlation doesn't automatically equal causation.

By the way B - you've thrown the fraud word around a lot without providing a shred of evidence to back your claim. Hmm... that sounds dangerously like an opinion! Perhaps you need to address the plank in your eye before berating me about the mote in mine?

DTWND said...

B, your arguments are reminiscent of Trump's, just as Ms. Fit explains 8 posts above this one. You believe with what your heart tells you, rather than your head; evidence be damned. The report in question involved unpaid individuals, several separate scientific centers, and over 30 different agencies of the federal government. And yet you still want to question the data because it doesn't agree with your world view. Say, you didn't go to one of Betsy DeVos' academies, did you?


dinthebeast said...

The Rude Pundit is, well, rude, and I try to be civil here, but sometimes the only way I can express myself is to link to his writing because technically, that isn't using that language or rhetoric here because you don't have to follow the link.
Lee Papa is a very smart guy, though.

-Doug in Oakland

CenterPuke88 said...

Here’s a titbit, five independently maintained sets of climate records confirm global warming. To “fix” this you would need an insider in each program, all working to the same goal. To have this be true, you simply need to readings to be accurate. Let’s apply Occum’s Razor.

Comrade Misfit said...

This comment thread has passed into the moderation zone, due to age. I don’t feel up to the task, at the moment. So I am shutting this down.