Anyone interested in facts of Climate Change should study NOAA graph of 420,000 yrs of Climate. Note: The Graph was originally presented in reversed form, which is misleading, and must be reversed for proper evaluation. ( Make sure it reads with oldest on left to current on right.
Bill Price
Note the caution about several Graphs on the web that have been reversed and extend CO2 and CH4 to current time.
This changes from Ice Core Data to Atmospheric data.
It is impossible to know if these are congruous as you can’t confirm with Ice Cores that require 100’s of years to stabilize. (The extensions are more psudo-$cientific mumbo jumbo. Sad. )
June 6, 2017 at 9:32 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A few graphs that show great volatility are being used to defend the Global Warming Hoax?!
What is the education background of these ‘scientists’ who fail to provide an adequate time period to properly assess the recently observed volatility, and point to a spike up to 400 ppm of CO2 when spikes to 300 ppm and 320 ppm are seen in the prior few cycles?
Sorry, 420,000 years, displaying 4 complete cycles in INSUFFICIENT evidence that the spike of 4/3.5 or 4/3 is a meaningful, significant aberration to point to human impacts on Climate change.
Get off your high horse if you think 4 cycles provides proof of that deviation’s significance. You and anyone else who holds that up as evidence need to be edified by someone with a proper stat background.
June 6, 2017 at 9:33 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
‘is INSUFFICIENT’, not ‘in INSUFFICIENT’. Bear culpa.
June 2, 2017 at 9:43 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Forgive us for not believing 420,000 years of data.
Agent,
It’s NOAA data not mine… You just have to reverse it to the the left to right orientation that our minds have been trained to follow, in order to understand it.
Bill Price
I hope not passing is the outcome. Nobody can say spewing stuff into the atmosphere is good, however the US must not cripple itself economically when we are light years ahead of other countries on the subject, let alone South America. In case nobody knows it, the world’s polar ice caps have completely melted before in the earth’s history so this is a speck of sand in the hour glass and will happen even if every last bit of pollutants on the planet are stopped. Certain self serving interests are screaming(think hypocrite Al Gore) yet how come they’re not worried about the apartment complex downwind in inner cities? No money to be made on that perhaps?…follow the $$$ and where the buck stops th the answer lies.
Following is a Link to the Original Graph.
You need to be cautious of copies that have been Reversed.
Often they extend CO2 to current time, but that data changes between Ice Core and Atmospheric data, which may be incongruous.
Nonetheless, the most interesting trend lines show CO2 rising as in past warm periods, while Temperatures have remained relatively flat for 10,000 to 12,000 years .. Why?
Bill Price
The recent spike is not statistically significant as it goes approx 4/3.2 or 4/3 above recent spikes.
Ask a statistician nearby for an explanation of the significance of that relativity, and state the conclusion is made on a CENSORED set of 4 complete cycles of CO2 levels (ppm). Wait for him/ her to laugh at it, then ask for an explanation as to why he/ she laughed.
RSH,,
IMO, it’s not so much that the CO2 CH4 trends seem to be within ranges of Standard Deviation of the Long Term, but that Scientests have changed from Ice Core Data to Atmospheric Data.
Whereas it is said in the Literature that it takes over 100 Years to have reliable Ice Core Data, there is no way to validate accuracy of index between the two..
Scientists know this, but publish such FoSi anyway.
We really need to be able to trust science, but we can’t.
BP
This thread is old, and I block all Cookies so can’t see responses. Maybe we can dig into this in the next news cycle.
Best regards.
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
I’m going to believe the 97 percent of climate scientists.
SAF
Obviously, Climate has been changing forever.
As to AGW.. perhaps that’s why NOAA reversed the graph, so the Scientests would be confused? : )
( Actually, I first saw the graph at a University Lecture by a NOAA scientest. Lots of Students, Grad students, Masters and PHD’s in the room. Not one had a single question. Not being a scientist,( and not having stayed in a Holiday Inn Express recently), I said the Graph looked backward and if reversed, it seemed that it would refute CO2 driven AGW. ( Which, when reversed, it does.)
I was told they didn’t have time to look at that ( and essentially I was disrupting the program.)
Look at it yourself. Most folks are smart enough to read a correctly presented graph without directions by the $cienti$t$.
Bill Price
Doug,,
As I said,,, ‘ Lots of environmental Students, Grad students, Masters and PHD’s in the room. Not one had a single question.’ BUT Not being a scientist, I was the only one.
Of course, if you don’t do your own investigations and trust what the “$cienti$t$” without question.. that’s your choice.
BP
RSH:
If I was asked if I believed in Climate Change,, knowing about Ice Ages, I would have to say yes,, ( as did the 97% Climate Scientists.)
If asked if the Change was forced by Human action, I would have to say, ” I don’t know”. ( I don’t think I haven’t seen what % know that.)
I do see that Temperatures have gone flat for 10,000 12,000 yrs. while ( Natural) CO2 has risen in a similar trend line as in the past. (I wonder Why? )
While fortunate for mankind, unfortunately for mankind, the Scientists do not seem to have any interest in funding out why.
BP
This just in, when China, India and other big polluters step up and do their part in reducing their emissions, then we can talk again. The US is through funding the rest of the world. This was a great move to put them on notice.
Agent,
IMO the question is, what do the Facts show is happening with Climate? Where are we headed?
Money or taxes are not as important as having a livable earth.
My concern is that political correctness has dominated $cience to mislead us.
Scientists better start actually working to find out what’s happening instead of selling out to political driven Science.
I’ll leave it to you folks to do your own investigations, if you care to.
Bill Price
Bill, you want some FACTS? The facts are that the Global Climate Change Hoaxers have been foisting an agenda on the entire world for several years now led by the infamous AlGrrr whose theories about what has happened have been completely debunked. He said the Polar Ice Cap would be completely gone by “2014”.
We had a former POTUS who lied to us for 8 straight years about anything and everything and one of the biggest lies was: “The most serious national security threat this nation faces is Climate Change”. Forgive us for not believing anything a Progressive Socialist ever says again on any subject.
June 5, 2017 at 10:12 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
We have a livable Earth. You & other Global Alarmists are making false, hyperbolic statements about ‘livable planet’, etc. It is as false as election forecasters who don’t follow the underlying trends in public opinion, but rather follow an agenda and FIT THE FACTS by distorting data or cherry picking data or picking specific starting points to measure warming trends. The earth’s climate changes in NO WAYS that mankind can SIGNIFICANTLY affect in any manner.
June 2, 2017 at 8:42 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Make America Gray Again!
Can’t wait for the new horse and buggy model to come out!
Please, first, trade in your computer for a pencil & paper.
That will yield no further annoying, distracting interaction with sensible, practical thinkers on the internet.
June 1, 2017 at 6:30 pm
bill price says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Given the Likes that SAF recieved, does that indicate that insurance people accept what the So Called experts say without question?
I presented a link so that a person can Reverse the graph, and evaluate it for yourself.
If people are fully willing and intent to accept direction without question, no wonder we’re in such a mess.
Seas will rise. Land will be flooded. People will die. Polar Bears will drown. Icebergs will melt faster than ever before. Al Gore’s beach front villa home will be lost under water. Carbon credits for Al Gore and other liberals will be lost. Oh, the humanity!
And 30 years ago we were warned about a hole in our ozone layer increasing at a rate that wasn’t sustainable for our future. What changed? We did – reducing our output of CFC’s, namely.
That is what I have been saying to those who are “complaining” that we have not realized some of the doom and gloom predictions.
It’s like when a doctor tells you that if you do not cut down on fatty foods, you will have a heart attack. You cut down on the fatty foods, do not have a heart attack, then say the doctor was wrong.
Venice Italy is nearly under water. It’s already happened to Atlantis, in only a few decades. OMG! Run away from the ocean shorelines before it’s too late!
Yogi – Unless you provide additional content aside from “I agree” or “I do not agree”, I promise I won’t make a follow-up comment to this question so you know I’m not trying to do a “gotcha” question or “trap” you into something to prove something else.
Simply asking: Do you agree we were warned about a growing hole in our ozone layer a few decades ago, and do you agree that man’s reduction of emitting CFC’s into the atmosphrere contributed to stopping it from getting any bigger?
June 7, 2017 at 10:16 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Global Warming fixed the Ozone hole.
Hooray for Global Warming! More, More, More GW!
June 8, 2017 at 8:14 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Was that response an “I agree” reply or an “I do not agree” reply? Please just answer the question.
June 14, 2017 at 6:50 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is not a comparison that is remotely similar.
This would be a lot more like the following:
There was a fad about brown rice syrup, it was shown to not spike your insulin levels, as well as help joints, act as a fiber almost to trap fats, etc. What we know about spiking insulin levels is that it can trigger diabetes. However, some people don’t ever have this happen, due to how their body processes food. The body in this scenario would be like a world. We know carbon can increase temperature, but not how much, what the threshold is, etc. There is too much variance.
And then let’s say someone started using brown rice syrup to stop insulin spikes,
Well, then it came out that it was damaging because while it’s only a small amount, brown rice syrup has an unusually large amount of arsenic.
The issue here you probably won’t catch is: This is the reason why you can’t possibly know if one food is actually good for you in fad diets. Maybe a high fiber bean is great, maybe there are other factors that make foods bad and good other than just the one you focus on. Maybe carbon in the atmosphere (body) which is needed to some degree I might add, is not the regulating factor causing all the warming, nearly to the degree you think it is.
Maybe, this is why people have an issue with doomsday prophecies not coming true for climate, because the climate community will not research or allow research that shows maybe carbon isn’t a big issue at all, and maybe human affects are not dangerous, at all. In fact, I have seen ecologists who even postulate it could be good, and emphasize that they believe carbon would have to be considerably high before having harmful actual affects, which we are nowhere near. Melting of the ice will eventually happen, by the by, and isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Canada would then become livable.
You basically just say simple idiotic things, and then pass them off as smart, whereas the other person who disbelieves is what, like someone ignoring a heart attack? And that’s not a stupid belief for you to have?
I’ve officially had it with you Ron, there’s a reason I go after your posts.
What is more dangerous, agent’s personality, or yours?
Think about it. If you had someone you were afraid of, who would it be, the person saying to the point phrases that everyone thought was dumb.
Or the person who said things that sounded like they were wrapped in ribbons, were overly simplistic, and caused people to be ok with taking extreme actions.
It would be like giving someone a drug to calm them down before leading them into the slaughter house.
That’s the best comparison I can draw. Your statements are not normal, they need to be revealed as such, and they cause damage.
So let’s just ignore anyone who denies the constantly changing charts and data and doomsday theories are crap, and says not to spend a bunch of money on crap, because of a simple fat comparison and healthy comparison.
You sound PRECISELY like a cult leader. Precisely. Don’t worry boys and girls, change the parameters, add to my coffers, and you’ll be saved! You were damned before, you’ll still be damned after, you’re still damned after that, and I can say exactly how your sin will destroy the world, and each time you allow a gay child under your roof a small baby dies, (because babies die, and gay people act every day, they must be tied!) just keep giving me money, and your babies will live!
I know this sounds crazy, but it really is what you’re doing.
I don’t take kindly to people who rile up the public saying the world will end, and we are doing horrible things, asking for huge spending initiative, huge cost of living changes, while they cannot decide on how much CO2 affects climate, maybe it will be this, oh, it wasn’t that, oh that’s because we forgot to include ocean temps! Let’s combine old data that is crap and apply a factor to compensate for the fact that it’s crap (literally impossible to predict in any good manner on fixing it with a coefficient) and then say because the charts now match we are right! The following year when that equation no longer works, let’s change it again! Look! We’re at the same conclusion!
Instead of being open to the possibility I don’t know, of looking into other factors and taking them seriously?
Anyone interested in facts of Climate Change should study NOAA graph of 420,000 yrs of Climate. Note: The Graph was originally presented in reversed form, which is misleading, and must be reversed for proper evaluation. ( Make sure it reads with oldest on left to current on right.
Bill Price
420,000 years of climate???? Really?
A link follows…Reverse the graph, and evaluate it yourself.
Do your own investigations.
BP
Link?
https://www.google.com/search?q=420,000+Climate+Graph&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS650US650&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio2_K3n53UAhWK7CYKHeN3BnwQ7AkIOg&biw=969&bih=530#imgrc=0V7rPKSAdOzrDM:
Note the caution about several Graphs on the web that have been reversed and extend CO2 and CH4 to current time.
This changes from Ice Core Data to Atmospheric data.
It is impossible to know if these are congruous as you can’t confirm with Ice Cores that require 100’s of years to stabilize. (The extensions are more psudo-$cientific mumbo jumbo. Sad. )
A few graphs that show great volatility are being used to defend the Global Warming Hoax?!
What is the education background of these ‘scientists’ who fail to provide an adequate time period to properly assess the recently observed volatility, and point to a spike up to 400 ppm of CO2 when spikes to 300 ppm and 320 ppm are seen in the prior few cycles?
Sorry, 420,000 years, displaying 4 complete cycles in INSUFFICIENT evidence that the spike of 4/3.5 or 4/3 is a meaningful, significant aberration to point to human impacts on Climate change.
Get off your high horse if you think 4 cycles provides proof of that deviation’s significance. You and anyone else who holds that up as evidence need to be edified by someone with a proper stat background.
‘is INSUFFICIENT’, not ‘in INSUFFICIENT’. Bear culpa.
Forgive us for not believing 420,000 years of data.
Agent,
It’s NOAA data not mine… You just have to reverse it to the the left to right orientation that our minds have been trained to follow, in order to understand it.
Bill Price
See my reply to your graphs list, above.
I hope not passing is the outcome. Nobody can say spewing stuff into the atmosphere is good, however the US must not cripple itself economically when we are light years ahead of other countries on the subject, let alone South America. In case nobody knows it, the world’s polar ice caps have completely melted before in the earth’s history so this is a speck of sand in the hour glass and will happen even if every last bit of pollutants on the planet are stopped. Certain self serving interests are screaming(think hypocrite Al Gore) yet how come they’re not worried about the apartment complex downwind in inner cities? No money to be made on that perhaps?…follow the $$$ and where the buck stops th the answer lies.
Following is a Link to the Original Graph.
You need to be cautious of copies that have been Reversed.
Often they extend CO2 to current time, but that data changes between Ice Core and Atmospheric data, which may be incongruous.
Nonetheless, the most interesting trend lines show CO2 rising as in past warm periods, while Temperatures have remained relatively flat for 10,000 to 12,000 years .. Why?
Bill Price
https://www.google.com/search?q=420,000+Climate+Graph&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS650US650&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio2_K3n53UAhWK7CYKHeN3BnwQ7AkIOg&biw=969&bih=530#imgrc=0V7rPKSAdOzrDM:
The recent spike is not statistically significant as it goes approx 4/3.2 or 4/3 above recent spikes.
Ask a statistician nearby for an explanation of the significance of that relativity, and state the conclusion is made on a CENSORED set of 4 complete cycles of CO2 levels (ppm). Wait for him/ her to laugh at it, then ask for an explanation as to why he/ she laughed.
RSH,,
IMO, it’s not so much that the CO2 CH4 trends seem to be within ranges of Standard Deviation of the Long Term, but that Scientests have changed from Ice Core Data to Atmospheric Data.
Whereas it is said in the Literature that it takes over 100 Years to have reliable Ice Core Data, there is no way to validate accuracy of index between the two..
Scientists know this, but publish such FoSi anyway.
We really need to be able to trust science, but we can’t.
BP
This thread is old, and I block all Cookies so can’t see responses. Maybe we can dig into this in the next news cycle.
Best regards.
Here’s what the NASA website says:
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
I’m going to believe the 97 percent of climate scientists.
SAF
Obviously, Climate has been changing forever.
As to AGW.. perhaps that’s why NOAA reversed the graph, so the Scientests would be confused? : )
( Actually, I first saw the graph at a University Lecture by a NOAA scientest. Lots of Students, Grad students, Masters and PHD’s in the room. Not one had a single question. Not being a scientist,( and not having stayed in a Holiday Inn Express recently), I said the Graph looked backward and if reversed, it seemed that it would refute CO2 driven AGW. ( Which, when reversed, it does.)
I was told they didn’t have time to look at that ( and essentially I was disrupting the program.)
Look at it yourself. Most folks are smart enough to read a correctly presented graph without directions by the $cienti$t$.
Bill Price
“$cienti$t$”… Now I have seen everything.
We are in good company by removing ourselves from the Paris Accord:
Nicaragua, who only abstained because they thought the Paris Accord didn’t go far enough to protect the environment.
and
Syria, who routinely gasses and bombs their own people.
Oh, but wait, it’s the $cienti$t$ who are the problem…
Doug,,
As I said,,, ‘ Lots of environmental Students, Grad students, Masters and PHD’s in the room. Not one had a single question.’ BUT Not being a scientist, I was the only one.
Of course, if you don’t do your own investigations and trust what the “$cienti$t$” without question.. that’s your choice.
BP
Do you realize that ‘97% of Climate Scientists’ comprise a miniscule portion of ALL scientists?
i.e. most scientists do NOT use a specialty designation of ‘Climate’ in their titles.
Those scientists who DENY Climate Change Influenced Significantly by humans will not use the title qualifier ‘Climate’.
Did you realize this is ANOTHER trick of the liberals supporting the Global Warming hoax?
Your reaction?
RSH:
If I was asked if I believed in Climate Change,, knowing about Ice Ages, I would have to say yes,, ( as did the 97% Climate Scientists.)
If asked if the Change was forced by Human action, I would have to say, ” I don’t know”. ( I don’t think I haven’t seen what % know that.)
I do see that Temperatures have gone flat for 10,000 12,000 yrs. while ( Natural) CO2 has risen in a similar trend line as in the past. (I wonder Why? )
While fortunate for mankind, unfortunately for mankind, the Scientists do not seem to have any interest in funding out why.
BP
Just in…US is out of the Paris Climate Accord.
This just in; US taxpayers and workers say ‘Hooray!’
Breaking News: Earth is crying along with a majority of U.S. taxpayers.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-americans-support-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/
But hey, the corporations will save billions of dollars and keep for themselves and their investors.
This just in, when China, India and other big polluters step up and do their part in reducing their emissions, then we can talk again. The US is through funding the rest of the world. This was a great move to put them on notice.
Agent,
IMO the question is, what do the Facts show is happening with Climate? Where are we headed?
Money or taxes are not as important as having a livable earth.
My concern is that political correctness has dominated $cience to mislead us.
Scientists better start actually working to find out what’s happening instead of selling out to political driven Science.
I’ll leave it to you folks to do your own investigations, if you care to.
Bill Price
Bill, you want some FACTS? The facts are that the Global Climate Change Hoaxers have been foisting an agenda on the entire world for several years now led by the infamous AlGrrr whose theories about what has happened have been completely debunked. He said the Polar Ice Cap would be completely gone by “2014”.
We had a former POTUS who lied to us for 8 straight years about anything and everything and one of the biggest lies was: “The most serious national security threat this nation faces is Climate Change”. Forgive us for not believing anything a Progressive Socialist ever says again on any subject.
We have a livable Earth. You & other Global Alarmists are making false, hyperbolic statements about ‘livable planet’, etc. It is as false as election forecasters who don’t follow the underlying trends in public opinion, but rather follow an agenda and FIT THE FACTS by distorting data or cherry picking data or picking specific starting points to measure warming trends. The earth’s climate changes in NO WAYS that mankind can SIGNIFICANTLY affect in any manner.
Make America Gray Again!
Can’t wait for the new horse and buggy model to come out!
Please, first, trade in your computer for a pencil & paper.
That will yield no further annoying, distracting interaction with sensible, practical thinkers on the internet.
Given the Likes that SAF recieved, does that indicate that insurance people accept what the So Called experts say without question?
I presented a link so that a person can Reverse the graph, and evaluate it for yourself.
If people are fully willing and intent to accept direction without question, no wonder we’re in such a mess.
BP
Seas will rise. Land will be flooded. People will die. Polar Bears will drown. Icebergs will melt faster than ever before. Al Gore’s beach front villa home will be lost under water. Carbon credits for Al Gore and other liberals will be lost. Oh, the humanity!
chuckle chuckle.. : )
BP
40 years ago we were headed for another ice age. Now we are going to burn up. Oh the humanity.
And 30 years ago we were warned about a hole in our ozone layer increasing at a rate that wasn’t sustainable for our future. What changed? We did – reducing our output of CFC’s, namely.
That is what I have been saying to those who are “complaining” that we have not realized some of the doom and gloom predictions.
It’s like when a doctor tells you that if you do not cut down on fatty foods, you will have a heart attack. You cut down on the fatty foods, do not have a heart attack, then say the doctor was wrong.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup :)
Venice Italy is nearly under water. It’s already happened to Atlantis, in only a few decades. OMG! Run away from the ocean shorelines before it’s too late!
Yogi – Unless you provide additional content aside from “I agree” or “I do not agree”, I promise I won’t make a follow-up comment to this question so you know I’m not trying to do a “gotcha” question or “trap” you into something to prove something else.
Simply asking: Do you agree we were warned about a growing hole in our ozone layer a few decades ago, and do you agree that man’s reduction of emitting CFC’s into the atmosphrere contributed to stopping it from getting any bigger?
Global Warming fixed the Ozone hole.
Hooray for Global Warming! More, More, More GW!
Was that response an “I agree” reply or an “I do not agree” reply? Please just answer the question.
This is not a comparison that is remotely similar.
This would be a lot more like the following:
There was a fad about brown rice syrup, it was shown to not spike your insulin levels, as well as help joints, act as a fiber almost to trap fats, etc. What we know about spiking insulin levels is that it can trigger diabetes. However, some people don’t ever have this happen, due to how their body processes food. The body in this scenario would be like a world. We know carbon can increase temperature, but not how much, what the threshold is, etc. There is too much variance.
And then let’s say someone started using brown rice syrup to stop insulin spikes,
Well, then it came out that it was damaging because while it’s only a small amount, brown rice syrup has an unusually large amount of arsenic.
The issue here you probably won’t catch is: This is the reason why you can’t possibly know if one food is actually good for you in fad diets. Maybe a high fiber bean is great, maybe there are other factors that make foods bad and good other than just the one you focus on. Maybe carbon in the atmosphere (body) which is needed to some degree I might add, is not the regulating factor causing all the warming, nearly to the degree you think it is.
Maybe, this is why people have an issue with doomsday prophecies not coming true for climate, because the climate community will not research or allow research that shows maybe carbon isn’t a big issue at all, and maybe human affects are not dangerous, at all. In fact, I have seen ecologists who even postulate it could be good, and emphasize that they believe carbon would have to be considerably high before having harmful actual affects, which we are nowhere near. Melting of the ice will eventually happen, by the by, and isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Canada would then become livable.
You basically just say simple idiotic things, and then pass them off as smart, whereas the other person who disbelieves is what, like someone ignoring a heart attack? And that’s not a stupid belief for you to have?
I’ve officially had it with you Ron, there’s a reason I go after your posts.
What is more dangerous, agent’s personality, or yours?
Think about it. If you had someone you were afraid of, who would it be, the person saying to the point phrases that everyone thought was dumb.
Or the person who said things that sounded like they were wrapped in ribbons, were overly simplistic, and caused people to be ok with taking extreme actions.
It would be like giving someone a drug to calm them down before leading them into the slaughter house.
That’s the best comparison I can draw. Your statements are not normal, they need to be revealed as such, and they cause damage.
So let’s just ignore anyone who denies the constantly changing charts and data and doomsday theories are crap, and says not to spend a bunch of money on crap, because of a simple fat comparison and healthy comparison.
You sound PRECISELY like a cult leader. Precisely. Don’t worry boys and girls, change the parameters, add to my coffers, and you’ll be saved! You were damned before, you’ll still be damned after, you’re still damned after that, and I can say exactly how your sin will destroy the world, and each time you allow a gay child under your roof a small baby dies, (because babies die, and gay people act every day, they must be tied!) just keep giving me money, and your babies will live!
I know this sounds crazy, but it really is what you’re doing.
I don’t take kindly to people who rile up the public saying the world will end, and we are doing horrible things, asking for huge spending initiative, huge cost of living changes, while they cannot decide on how much CO2 affects climate, maybe it will be this, oh, it wasn’t that, oh that’s because we forgot to include ocean temps! Let’s combine old data that is crap and apply a factor to compensate for the fact that it’s crap (literally impossible to predict in any good manner on fixing it with a coefficient) and then say because the charts now match we are right! The following year when that equation no longer works, let’s change it again! Look! We’re at the same conclusion!
Instead of being open to the possibility I don’t know, of looking into other factors and taking them seriously?