Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[ComradeKayAdams]

13 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

A problem with determining the temperature of the Earth is that at any point in time the actual temperature varies from point to point.  It can be -50 at the poles and 100 degrees at the equator at the exact same time. So what's the temperature of the Earth?

The temperature needs to be derived through employment of a method or process.  And unless you understand the method or process used, validate it, and use it consistently you can't conclude with any confidence the results are accurate or a true representation of what is actually happening.

 

So you’re referring to the GLOBAL mean surface temperature, which I think is currently ~59 degrees F. It’s calculated by taking the average of enough LOCAL mean surface temperatures across the planet. These local data points are about equally spaced from each other and form a spherically symmetrical pattern. The number can be calculated manually, but most computers trivially find it with numerical integration techniques. Each data point representing each local mean surface temperature is similarly found by calculating local temperature averages across equally spaced time increments, over the course of a full year.

 

The annual delta of Earth’s mean surface temperature is what tells us the net heat trapping from the greenhouse effect. You can never rely on local mean surface temperatures to give you the full story because global warming is never uniform. Western New York could be experiencing an unusually cold year under global warming conditions, while Florida and Brazil and the Middle East and Russia and Antarctica could all be experiencing unusually warm years. If you’ve ever seen global annual heat maps, you’ll see a mix of hot and cold spots but overall much more heat.

 

But that’s just the surface temperature. There are also temperature measurements for the ocean and for the different layers of the atmosphere.

 

My new challenge to all the anthropogenic climate change skeptics here: explain why our troposphere is heating up while our stratosphere is cooling??

 

Throughout most of Earth’s history, we know that climate has been dependent on interactions with the Sun: either from solar weather variations or from the periodic peculiarities of Earth’s motion about the Sun. The exceptions have been geothermal activity like volcanoes and related atmospheric composition changes. So if the current observed global warming is related to planetary interactions with the Sun, then the atmospheric heating should be uniform. But it’s not. Why is that??

 

FYI: for those who want to suggest cloud coverage, keep in mind that cloud effects vary greatly by type, height in the sky, and time of the day (reflective during the day and insulating at night). Climate data indicates that these effects can quickly cancel each other out, so evidence for any longstanding cloud-related positive feedback loop that initiated global warming is highly unlikely.

[4th&long]

12 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

So you’re referring to the GLOBAL mean surface temperature, which I think is currently ~59 degrees F. It’s calculated by taking the average of enough LOCAL mean surface temperatures across the planet. These local data points are about equally spaced from each other and form a spherically symmetrical pattern. The number can be calculated manually, but most computers trivially find it with numerical integration techniques. Each data point representing each local mean surface temperature is similarly found by calculating local temperature averages across equally spaced time increments, over the course of a full year.

 

The annual delta of Earth’s mean surface temperature is what tells us the net heat trapping from the greenhouse effect. You can never rely on local mean surface temperatures to give you the full story because global warming is never uniform. Western New York could be experiencing an unusually cold year under global warming conditions, while Florida and Brazil and the Middle East and Russia and Antarctica could all be experiencing unusually warm years. If you’ve ever seen global annual heat maps, you’ll see a mix of hot and cold spots but overall much more heat.

 

But that’s just the surface temperature. There are also temperature measurements for the ocean and for the different layers of the atmosphere.

 

My new challenge to all the anthropogenic climate change skeptics here: explain why our troposphere is heating up while our stratosphere is cooling??

 

Throughout most of Earth’s history, we know that climate has been dependent on interactions with the Sun: either from solar weather variations or from the periodic peculiarities of Earth’s motion about the Sun. The exceptions have been geothermal activity like volcanoes and related atmospheric composition changes. So if the current observed global warming is related to planetary interactions with the Sun, then the atmospheric heating should be uniform. But it’s not. Why is that??

 

FYI: for those who want to suggest cloud coverage, keep in mind that cloud effects vary greatly by type, height in the sky, and time of the day (reflective during the day and insulating at night). Climate data indicates that these effects can quickly cancel each other out, so evidence for any longstanding cloud-related positive feedback loop that initiated global warming is highly unlikely.

Your turn boys! Anybody want to argue with that?

[B-Man]

 

 

SCIENCE! NBC Affiliate's Attempt to Link NY-Area Earthquake to Climate Change Is Beyond Parody

 

FTA:

 

Because of the Dem/Media's "always be closing" mentality, you just knew somebody would try to make climate change enter the chat. Perhaps it was inevitable: 

 

 

Absolutely embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp/2024/04/05/nbc-news-attempt-to-link-ny-area-earthquake-to-climate-change-is-beyond-parody-n2394789

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

SCIENCE! NBC Affiliate's Attempt to Link NY-Area Earthquake to Climate Change Is Beyond Parody

 

FTA:

 

Because of the Dem/Media's "always be closing" mentality, you just knew somebody would try to make climate change enter the chat. Perhaps it was inevitable: 

 

 

Absolutely embarrassing.

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp/2024/04/05/nbc-news-attempt-to-link-ny-area-earthquake-to-climate-change-is-beyond-parody-n2394789

 

 

 

 

Somewhere, a liberal is devising a magma tax to offset the effects of magma magmatizing.  

[Orlando Tim]

On 4/2/2024 at 8:14 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

So you’re referring to the GLOBAL mean surface temperature, which I think is currently ~59 degrees F. It’s calculated by taking the average of enough LOCAL mean surface temperatures across the planet. These local data points are about equally spaced from each other and form a spherically symmetrical pattern. The number can be calculated manually, but most computers trivially find it with numerical integration techniques. Each data point representing each local mean surface temperature is similarly found by calculating local temperature averages across equally spaced time increments, over the course of a full year.

 

The annual delta of Earth’s mean surface temperature is what tells us the net heat trapping from the greenhouse effect. You can never rely on local mean surface temperatures to give you the full story because global warming is never uniform. Western New York could be experiencing an unusually cold year under global warming conditions, while Florida and Brazil and the Middle East and Russia and Antarctica could all be experiencing unusually warm years. If you’ve ever seen global annual heat maps, you’ll see a mix of hot and cold spots but overall much more heat.

 

But that’s just the surface temperature. There are also temperature measurements for the ocean and for the different layers of the atmosphere.

 

My new challenge to all the anthropogenic climate change skeptics here: explain why our troposphere is heating up while our stratosphere is cooling??

 

Throughout most of Earth’s history, we know that climate has been dependent on interactions with the Sun: either from solar weather variations or from the periodic peculiarities of Earth’s motion about the Sun. The exceptions have been geothermal activity like volcanoes and related atmospheric composition changes. So if the current observed global warming is related to planetary interactions with the Sun, then the atmospheric heating should be uniform. But it’s not. Why is that??

 

FYI: for those who want to suggest cloud coverage, keep in mind that cloud effects vary greatly by type, height in the sky, and time of the day (reflective during the day and insulating at night). Climate data indicates that these effects can quickly cancel each other out, so evidence for any longstanding cloud-related positive feedback loop that initiated global warming is highly unlikely.

Can you show me all the studies of ocean temps and the stratosphere from the 1920's? As you stated much of the temp data is derived from computers, which have only been largely useful and accurate for 30 years. Secondly why have the overall predictions laid out by Al Gore in his crap movie been wrong? We have plenty of snow, hurricanes have not gotten worse, and temps are within 1* of that time frame. As we argued once before the very fact that they do not have the actual raw numbers from prior to 2008 but only the "fortified numbers" makes the whole thing absurd, scientists don't get to cull numbers at their choosing. The fact that they remove the 5% that disagrees with the assessment on a topic that is about small changes is crazy. If I took away my bottom 5% of students I would be the top teacher in the county easily every year.

 

This is from the group that does the research

"The CRU told some skeptical researchers it couldn't send them the original raw data because "data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." This explanation raises legitimate questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added" data.  

Later, University of East Anglia Pro-Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies stated, "It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are skeptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years." See above about data interdependence." 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Does San Francisco have any nearby wet markets in case this gets wonky? 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:35 AM, Orlando Tim said:

Can you show me all the studies of ocean temps and the stratosphere from the 1920's? As you stated much of the temp data is derived from computers, which have only been largely useful and accurate for 30 years. Secondly why have the overall predictions laid out by Al Gore in his crap movie been wrong? We have plenty of snow, hurricanes have not gotten worse, and temps are within 1* of that time frame. As we argued once before the very fact that they do not have the actual raw numbers from prior to 2008 but only the "fortified numbers" makes the whole thing absurd, scientists don't get to cull numbers at their choosing. The fact that they remove the 5% that disagrees with the assessment on a topic that is about small changes is crazy. If I took away my bottom 5% of students I would be the top teacher in the county easily every year.

 

This is from the group that does the research

"The CRU told some skeptical researchers it couldn't send them the original raw data because "data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data." This explanation raises legitimate questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added" data.  

Later, University of East Anglia Pro-Vice-Chancellor Trevor Davies stated, "It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are skeptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years." See above about data interdependence." 

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

I find it funny you are throwing around the concept of conspiracy theory when you believe that if I simply give the government money they will control the weather. I will also point out that requesting a peer reviewed study when you admit the raw data is not available is absurd. 

[The Frankish Reich]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Sigh.]

I am someone who believes we are experiencing global climate change. (Actually not a "belief"; it's a fact.) And I believe the evidence shows that a significant part of that is human-created. Exactly how large a part, I don't know.

 

But I'm also a climate optimist. One big reason: geoengineering. Yes, there are risks. There are also risks associated with doing nothing and hoping that nature reverses course all by itself.

 

That's why it's depressing to see people putting geoengineering into the category of what "woke scientists" (see above) do. It's kind of the opposite. It's "we're looking for a way to cancel out greenhouse gas emissions so that we don't have to shut down the fossil fuel economy to prevent the worst impacts of global warming." I'm for it; you should be for it. But here we have "if the government is doing it is is automatically suspect and bad." 

 

[Roundybout]

23 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

[L Ron Burgundy]

2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

This thread is like a debate with flat earthers.   

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

13 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Conservatives consistently uphold Ralph Emerson’s take that the root of all fear is ignorance 

Did conservatives also tell you Santa isn't real. Good God man, hatred isn't healthy.

[L Ron Burgundy]

10 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Did conservatives also tell you Santa isn't real. Good God man, hatred isn't healthy.

I dont see anything resembling hate in his post.  Not sure why you'd even take it that way.  

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

No, I did not state that much of the data is DERIVED from computers. All of the data collecting and data PROCESSING is done with computers because it can be. Interpolation and numerical integration techniques have been around since the days of Newton and Liebniz. Or are those now considered part of the grand climate science conspiracy??

 

Direct temperature readings of the stratosphere and oceans have been extremely thorough and precise for at least the past few decades. Exactly how many more years of data collecting here are necessary before consensus inferences can be accepted??

 

I suppose we could discuss rising ocean temperatures here, if you insist, but it won’t be overwhelmingly convincing to the “skeptics” crowd because the factors contributing to its rise are far more nuanced than they are for the stratosphere.

 

So let’s get back to the stratosphere, in relation to the troposphere. Direct temperature readings for the stratosphere have been collected since the first satellites were launched, but we can focus on the public data compiled from the past three decades. What is a “skeptical” person’s explanation for the consistent drop in stratosphere temperature (along with its physical shrinking), well above thermal noise variation, in parallel with the consistent rise in troposphere temperature?

 

A simple physics-based or earth science-based explanation is all that I’m requesting. L Ron and Tibsy and 4th-y and I, however, do demand a peer-reviewed scientific research paper citation if you’re going to suggest ozone variations because that explanation has already been thoroughly analyzed.

 

My commentary on Al Gore’s movie and on Climategate haven’t changed since we last had those discussions ~2 years ago here.

I think you've presented an interesting theory but how many years of data do we have relative to the age of the Earth?  A 100 years or less of temperature data from all these temperature gathering stations over the course of about 4.5 billion years?  Let's say 1 billion years as an inhabitable place.   If my math is correct that's .0001% of Earth history.  Is that a sufficient sample size to represent the potential historical record?  Although we don't have specific temperature readings we know from other geological records and events the Earth has been a lot hotter and a lot cooler before Humans appeared on the scene.  So by definition something else, geological events like volcanoes, played a key role in climate variations.

 

Now I'm not saying the theory you've laid out is incorrect.  It may very well be correct.  There's simply insufficient information available to validate it as the only explanation.

 

I'm also curious about the placement of temperature monitoring equipment.  I have a thermometer near my deck and in the Summer it can be 100 degrees but if I take the thermometer and walk about 40 feet south to a row of shade trees the temperature there can be 68 degrees on the same day at the same time.  Not only are there regional variances in temperature readings on Earth but variances down to the local level inside a 3/4 acre lot.       

Edited April 8 by All_Pro_Bills

[Orlando Tim]

Frankish and I agree a lot on the idea that climate change is something we simply have to learn to deal with, especially since we know man does affect the climate since there are 7 billion of us here. I though see the government more along the lines of the oil embargo of the 70s than actually doing anything useful. We can pretend that California can handle 20 million electric cars in 10 years but without a greatly improved electric grid that is not happening. In the past 50 years I have been told the earth was overpopulated at 3.5 billion, we were gonna run out of oil several times, and acid rain was coming. I was just told by@ComradeKayAdamsthat the ozone is in great shape so that is another problem government promised to fix, never did anything but still no issue. 

Edited April 8 by Orlando Tim

[BillStime]

 

[Doc]

33 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Same scientists who said the Wuhan vaccine was 100% safe and would prevent you from getting and spreading Wuhan virus.

[BillStime]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Same scientists who said the Wuhan vaccine was 100% safe and would prevent you from getting and spreading Wuhan virus.

You're still alive, right? 

[Orlando Tim]

8 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Do you intentionally put up stupidly incorrect posts? Is someone paying you to be this dumb?

[Doc]

8 hours ago, BillStime said:

You're still alive, right? 

 

I could just as easily have been alive without the vaccine.

[Roundybout]

18 hours ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said:

Did conservatives also tell you Santa isn't real. Good God man, hatred isn't healthy.

Not sure how you got “I hate conservatives” out of that post but hey

[Tommy Callahan]

IS this where we are still laughing about the talking heads on the view blaming climate change for an Eclipse?

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

28 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

IS this where we are still laughing about the talking heads on the view blaming climate change for an Eclipse?

 

 

 

 

[Irv]

37 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

That broad has to be one of the biggest dopes in media.  What a mess.  

[Doc]

They should have that moron read from a script.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

22 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

“Sunny”.  Oh, the irony of it all. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:19 AM, Orlando Tim said:

I find it funny you are throwing around the concept of conspiracy theory when you believe that if I simply give the government money they will control the weather. I will also point out that requesting a peer reviewed study when you admit the raw data is not available is absurd. 

 

What unavailable raw data are you talking about?! Stratosphere temps? Just use the most recent decades of data that NOAA and NASA-GISS have made publicly available. To reiterate: we’re looking for an explanation of HOW THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING.

 

And yes, I do believe that government-directed money allocation can influence planetary climate to some extent. That’s pretty much one of the main realized corollaries that come from acknowledging greenhouse effect physics! Probably more accurately: I believe that private industries, through technological innovations based on government-funded research, will play a bigger role than various carbon pricing strategies (carbon tax, cap-and-trade schemes, etc.) meant to modify human energy consumption behavior.

 

On 4/8/2024 at 2:24 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

I think you've presented an interesting theory but how many years of data do we have relative to the age of the Earth?  A 100 years or less of temperature data from all these temperature gathering stations over the course of about 4.5 billion years?  Let's say 1 billion years as an inhabitable place.   If my math is correct that's .0001% of Earth history.  Is that a sufficient sample size to represent the potential historical record?  Although we don't have specific temperature readings we know from other geological records and events the Earth has been a lot hotter and a lot cooler before Humans appeared on the scene.  So by definition something else, geological events like volcanoes, played a key role in climate variations.

 

Now I'm not saying the theory you've laid out is incorrect.  It may very well be correct.  There's simply insufficient information available to validate it as the only explanation.

 

I'm also curious about the placement of temperature monitoring equipment.  I have a thermometer near my deck and in the Summer it can be 100 degrees but if I take the thermometer and walk about 40 feet south to a row of shade trees the temperature there can be 68 degrees on the same day at the same time.  Not only are there regional variances in temperature readings on Earth but variances down to the local level inside a 3/4 acre lot.       

 

(100)/(1 billion) = (10^2)/(10^9) = 10^(-7) = 0.0000001 = 0.00001%...so you were missing a zero…but point taken lol! Your question is a really good one: do we have sufficient data from a large enough time span to make such definitive climate science claims?

 

I would say we do. For one thing, if you look at scatterplots of temperature data versus time and analyze the regression lines (the relative positions and the slopes) which describe the climate behavior, you’ll quickly see that a rule-of-thumb minimum of about three decades is perfectly reasonable for defining a given region’s climate.

 

Moreover, we’re looking for the following criteria to give us scientific confidence:

 

1. A logically reasoned hypothesis that is experimentally falsifiable.

2. Reliable methods of data collection with sufficient precision.

3. Statistically large enough sample sizes of data.

4. A consistent data signal trend that is well above thermal noise.

5. A process of elimination for all other explanatory factors.

 

The latter-most criterion is what distinguishes surface temperatures and (to some extent) ocean temperatures from stratosphere temperatures. With surfaces and oceans, we have plenty of pre-Industrial Revolution earth science evidence, with confluence, that so far rule out all known natural explanations for climate change.

 

For stratosphere temperature data, we’re mostly relying on the strength of the first criterion I listed. But fortunately, the stratosphere is a lot less complicated than the troposphere in the sense that there are way fewer feedback control system inputs to understand. And even before the days in which air balloons and airplanes and satellites were routinely traversing the stratosphere (even before we knew of the stratosphere’s existence, really), tabletop experiments were performed of the energy absorption/emission behavior of molecules like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and whatever else might finds its way into this atmosphere layer.

 

So basically, geophysicists already had well-articulated predictions of how an atmospheric layer sitting above another layer of increasing carbon dioxide density might cool and contract. Modern temperature data from satellites simply confirmed this strong hypothesis. But if the anthropogenic climate change skeptics have an alternate explanation, then by all means…

 

Regarding temperature recordings: official ones are always taken in the shade. The purpose of the recording is strictly to measure the air’s temperature, which is just a single aggregate number that quantifies the average energy of the air molecules. So to accurately measure this, the air sample needs to be isolated from any additional energy coming directly from the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation).

 

On 4/8/2024 at 4:25 PM, Orlando Tim said:

Frankish and I agree a lot on the idea that climate change is something we simply have to learn to deal with, especially since we know man does affect the climate since there are 7 billion of us here. I though see the government more along the lines of the oil embargo of the 70s than actually doing anything useful. We can pretend that California can handle 20 million electric cars in 10 years but without a greatly improved electric grid that is not happening. In the past 50 years I have been told the earth was overpopulated at 3.5 billion, we were gonna run out of oil several times, and acid rain was coming. I was just told by@ComradeKayAdamsthat the ozone is in great shape so that is another problem government promised to fix, never did anything but still no issue. 

 

Actually, all that I told you about the ozone was that its well-studied behavior can’t explain the observed cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. But since you brought it up lol…yes, it’s in much better shape since that 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the international use of certain industrial chemicals. Yay government intervention!! A rare victory for Mother Earth over laissez-faire cultists!

 

Addressing the rest of your post content:

 

1. Climate change fatalism is a completely unacceptable philosophy because of the potential triggering of climate change tipping points (ice sheets, permafrost, ocean currents, coral reef health, rainforests, boreal forests, etc.).

2. It would have been helpful if our country had planned much earlier for an electric car economy and a modernized electrical grid. In this regard, I mostly blame the festering culture of climate change denialism and government-hating libertarian fanaticism.

3. What constitutes a global population limit is subjective. What’s the expected quality of living? Land, freshwater, and food are finite resources. Tech advances in agriculture have pushed back the more alarming overpopulation predictions, but there is a limit. A certain percentage of Earth’s land must also be reserved for forests (preferably old-growth ones), if you’re at all concerned about climate change. Also: go vegan to reduce land usage and reduce greenhouse gas footprints!

4. I don’t know who exactly has been claiming that we’ll run out of oil or when they made these claims, but it is still technically a nonrenewable energy resource. Technological improvements in extraction and refining, as well as places that have become open for resource extraction, are pretty significant variables that have allowed for an enormous range of predictions.

5. U.S. Clean Air Act amendments dramatically reduced acid rain! It’s one of the best examples, in fact, of the potential of cap-and-trade schemes.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

6 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

What unavailable raw data are you talking about?! Stratosphere temps? Just use the most recent decades of data that NOAA and NASA-GISS have made publicly available. To reiterate: we’re looking for an explanation of HOW THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING.

 

And yes, I do believe that government-directed money allocation can influence planetary climate to some extent. That’s pretty much one of the main realized corollaries that come from acknowledging greenhouse effect physics! Probably more accurately: I believe that private industries, through technological innovations based on government-funded research, will play a bigger role than various carbon pricing strategies (carbon tax, cap-and-trade schemes, etc.) meant to modify human energy consumption behavior.

 

 

(100)/(1 billion) = (10^2)/(10^9) = 10^(-7) = 0.0000001 = 0.00001%...so you were missing a zero…but point taken lol! Your question is a really good one: do we have sufficient data from a large enough time span to make such definitive climate science claims?

 

I would say we do. For one thing, if you look at scatterplots of temperature data versus time and analyze the regression lines (the relative positions and the slopes) which describe the climate behavior, you’ll quickly see that a rule-of-thumb minimum of about three decades is perfectly reasonable for defining a given region’s climate.

 

Moreover, we’re looking for the following criteria to give us scientific confidence:

 

1. A logically reasoned hypothesis that is experimentally falsifiable.

2. Reliable methods of data collection with sufficient precision.

3. Statistically large enough sample sizes of data.

4. A consistent data signal trend that is well above thermal noise.

5. A process of elimination for all other explanatory factors.

 

The latter-most criterion is what distinguishes surface temperatures and (to some extent) ocean temperatures from stratosphere temperatures. With surfaces and oceans, we have plenty of pre-Industrial Revolution earth science evidence, with confluence, that so far rule out all known natural explanations for climate change.

 

For stratosphere temperature data, we’re mostly relying on the strength of the first criterion I listed. But fortunately, the stratosphere is a lot less complicated than the troposphere in the sense that there are way fewer feedback control system inputs to understand. And even before the days in which air balloons and airplanes and satellites were routinely traversing the stratosphere (even before we knew of the stratosphere’s existence, really), tabletop experiments were performed of the energy absorption/emission behavior of molecules like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and whatever else might finds its way into this atmosphere layer.

 

So basically, geophysicists already had well-articulated predictions of how an atmospheric layer sitting above another layer of increasing carbon dioxide density might cool and contract. Modern temperature data from satellites simply confirmed this strong hypothesis. But if the anthropogenic climate change skeptics have an alternate explanation, then by all means…

 

Regarding temperature recordings: official ones are always taken in the shade. The purpose of the recording is strictly to measure the air’s temperature, which is just a single aggregate number that quantifies the average energy of the air molecules. So to accurately measure this, the air sample needs to be isolated from any additional energy coming directly from the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation).

 

 

Actually, all that I told you about the ozone was that its well-studied behavior can’t explain the observed cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. But since you brought it up lol…yes, it’s in much better shape since that 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the international use of certain industrial chemicals. Yay government intervention!! A rare victory for Mother Earth over laissez-faire cultists!

 

Addressing the rest of your post content:

 

1. Climate change fatalism is a completely unacceptable philosophy because of the potential triggering of climate change tipping points (ice sheets, permafrost, ocean currents, coral reef health, rainforests, boreal forests, etc.).

2. It would have been helpful if our country had planned much earlier for an electric car economy and a modernized electrical grid. In this regard, I mostly blame the festering culture of climate change denialism and government-hating libertarian fanaticism.

3. What constitutes a global population limit is subjective. What’s the expected quality of living? Land, freshwater, and food are finite resources. Tech advances in agriculture have pushed back the more alarming overpopulation predictions, but there is a limit. A certain percentage of Earth’s land must also be reserved for forests (preferably old-growth ones), if you’re at all concerned about climate change. Also: go vegan to reduce land usage and reduce greenhouse gas footprints!

4. I don’t know who exactly has been claiming that we’ll run out of oil or when they made these claims, but it is still technically a nonrenewable energy resource. Technological improvements in extraction and refining, as well as places that have become open for resource extraction, are pretty significant variables that have allowed for an enormous range of predictions.

5. U.S. Clean Air Act amendments dramatically reduced acid rain! It’s one of the best examples, in fact, of the potential of cap-and-trade schemes.

Interesting thoughts—a little extreme with the cult talk as you advocate for the slaughter of generations of plant life, and a tad Mao-esque for my tastes, but no one liked acid rain, and forests are mose def cool if you look beyond all those darn trees. 
 

 

[4th&long]

18 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

What unavailable raw data are you talking about?! Stratosphere temps? Just use the most recent decades of data that NOAA and NASA-GISS have made publicly available. To reiterate: we’re looking for an explanation of HOW THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING.

 

And yes, I do believe that government-directed money allocation can influence planetary climate to some extent. That’s pretty much one of the main realized corollaries that come from acknowledging greenhouse effect physics! Probably more accurately: I believe that private industries, through technological innovations based on government-funded research, will play a bigger role than various carbon pricing strategies (carbon tax, cap-and-trade schemes, etc.) meant to modify human energy consumption behavior.

 

 

(100)/(1 billion) = (10^2)/(10^9) = 10^(-7) = 0.0000001 = 0.00001%...so you were missing a zero…but point taken lol! Your question is a really good one: do we have sufficient data from a large enough time span to make such definitive climate science claims?

 

I would say we do. For one thing, if you look at scatterplots of temperature data versus time and analyze the regression lines (the relative positions and the slopes) which describe the climate behavior, you’ll quickly see that a rule-of-thumb minimum of about three decades is perfectly reasonable for defining a given region’s climate.

 

Moreover, we’re looking for the following criteria to give us scientific confidence:

 

1. A logically reasoned hypothesis that is experimentally falsifiable.

2. Reliable methods of data collection with sufficient precision.

3. Statistically large enough sample sizes of data.

4. A consistent data signal trend that is well above thermal noise.

5. A process of elimination for all other explanatory factors.

 

The latter-most criterion is what distinguishes surface temperatures and (to some extent) ocean temperatures from stratosphere temperatures. With surfaces and oceans, we have plenty of pre-Industrial Revolution earth science evidence, with confluence, that so far rule out all known natural explanations for climate change.

 

For stratosphere temperature data, we’re mostly relying on the strength of the first criterion I listed. But fortunately, the stratosphere is a lot less complicated than the troposphere in the sense that there are way fewer feedback control system inputs to understand. And even before the days in which air balloons and airplanes and satellites were routinely traversing the stratosphere (even before we knew of the stratosphere’s existence, really), tabletop experiments were performed of the energy absorption/emission behavior of molecules like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and whatever else might finds its way into this atmosphere layer.

 

So basically, geophysicists already had well-articulated predictions of how an atmospheric layer sitting above another layer of increasing carbon dioxide density might cool and contract. Modern temperature data from satellites simply confirmed this strong hypothesis. But if the anthropogenic climate change skeptics have an alternate explanation, then by all means…

 

Regarding temperature recordings: official ones are always taken in the shade. The purpose of the recording is strictly to measure the air’s temperature, which is just a single aggregate number that quantifies the average energy of the air molecules. So to accurately measure this, the air sample needs to be isolated from any additional energy coming directly from the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation).

 

 

Actually, all that I told you about the ozone was that its well-studied behavior can’t explain the observed cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. But since you brought it up lol…yes, it’s in much better shape since that 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the international use of certain industrial chemicals. Yay government intervention!! A rare victory for Mother Earth over laissez-faire cultists!

 

Addressing the rest of your post content:

 

1. Climate change fatalism is a completely unacceptable philosophy because of the potential triggering of climate change tipping points (ice sheets, permafrost, ocean currents, coral reef health, rainforests, boreal forests, etc.).

2. It would have been helpful if our country had planned much earlier for an electric car economy and a modernized electrical grid. In this regard, I mostly blame the festering culture of climate change denialism and government-hating libertarian fanaticism.

3. What constitutes a global population limit is subjective. What’s the expected quality of living? Land, freshwater, and food are finite resources. Tech advances in agriculture have pushed back the more alarming overpopulation predictions, but there is a limit. A certain percentage of Earth’s land must also be reserved for forests (preferably old-growth ones), if you’re at all concerned about climate change. Also: go vegan to reduce land usage and reduce greenhouse gas footprints!

4. I don’t know who exactly has been claiming that we’ll run out of oil or when they made these claims, but it is still technically a nonrenewable energy resource. Technological improvements in extraction and refining, as well as places that have become open for resource extraction, are pretty significant variables that have allowed for an enormous range of predictions.

5. U.S. Clean Air Act amendments dramatically reduced acid rain! It’s one of the best examples, in fact, of the potential of cap-and-trade schemes.

Kay for the win! Someone who obviously educated themselves on a subject before trying to comment on it. Awesome.

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

What unavailable raw data are you talking about?! Stratosphere temps? Just use the most recent decades of data that NOAA and NASA-GISS have made publicly available. To reiterate: we’re looking for an explanation of HOW THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING.

 

And yes, I do believe that government-directed money allocation can influence planetary climate to some extent. That’s pretty much one of the main realized corollaries that come from acknowledging greenhouse effect physics! Probably more accurately: I believe that private industries, through technological innovations based on government-funded research, will play a bigger role than various carbon pricing strategies (carbon tax, cap-and-trade schemes, etc.) meant to modify human energy consumption behavior.

 

 

(100)/(1 billion) = (10^2)/(10^9) = 10^(-7) = 0.0000001 = 0.00001%...so you were missing a zero…but point taken lol! Your question is a really good one: do we have sufficient data from a large enough time span to make such definitive climate science claims?

 

I would say we do. For one thing, if you look at scatterplots of temperature data versus time and analyze the regression lines (the relative positions and the slopes) which describe the climate behavior, you’ll quickly see that a rule-of-thumb minimum of about three decades is perfectly reasonable for defining a given region’s climate.

 

Moreover, we’re looking for the following criteria to give us scientific confidence:

 

1. A logically reasoned hypothesis that is experimentally falsifiable.

2. Reliable methods of data collection with sufficient precision.

3. Statistically large enough sample sizes of data.

4. A consistent data signal trend that is well above thermal noise.

5. A process of elimination for all other explanatory factors.

 

The latter-most criterion is what distinguishes surface temperatures and (to some extent) ocean temperatures from stratosphere temperatures. With surfaces and oceans, we have plenty of pre-Industrial Revolution earth science evidence, with confluence, that so far rule out all known natural explanations for climate change.

 

For stratosphere temperature data, we’re mostly relying on the strength of the first criterion I listed. But fortunately, the stratosphere is a lot less complicated than the troposphere in the sense that there are way fewer feedback control system inputs to understand. And even before the days in which air balloons and airplanes and satellites were routinely traversing the stratosphere (even before we knew of the stratosphere’s existence, really), tabletop experiments were performed of the energy absorption/emission behavior of molecules like carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, ozone, and whatever else might finds its way into this atmosphere layer.

 

So basically, geophysicists already had well-articulated predictions of how an atmospheric layer sitting above another layer of increasing carbon dioxide density might cool and contract. Modern temperature data from satellites simply confirmed this strong hypothesis. But if the anthropogenic climate change skeptics have an alternate explanation, then by all means…

 

Regarding temperature recordings: official ones are always taken in the shade. The purpose of the recording is strictly to measure the air’s temperature, which is just a single aggregate number that quantifies the average energy of the air molecules. So to accurately measure this, the air sample needs to be isolated from any additional energy coming directly from the Sun (in the form of electromagnetic radiation).

 

 

Actually, all that I told you about the ozone was that its well-studied behavior can’t explain the observed cooling and contraction of the stratosphere. But since you brought it up lol…yes, it’s in much better shape since that 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned the international use of certain industrial chemicals. Yay government intervention!! A rare victory for Mother Earth over laissez-faire cultists!

 

Addressing the rest of your post content:

 

1. Climate change fatalism is a completely unacceptable philosophy because of the potential triggering of climate change tipping points (ice sheets, permafrost, ocean currents, coral reef health, rainforests, boreal forests, etc.).

2. It would have been helpful if our country had planned much earlier for an electric car economy and a modernized electrical grid. In this regard, I mostly blame the festering culture of climate change denialism and government-hating libertarian fanaticism.

3. What constitutes a global population limit is subjective. What’s the expected quality of living? Land, freshwater, and food are finite resources. Tech advances in agriculture have pushed back the more alarming overpopulation predictions, but there is a limit. A certain percentage of Earth’s land must also be reserved for forests (preferably old-growth ones), if you’re at all concerned about climate change. Also: go vegan to reduce land usage and reduce greenhouse gas footprints!

4. I don’t know who exactly has been claiming that we’ll run out of oil or when they made these claims, but it is still technically a nonrenewable energy resource. Technological improvements in extraction and refining, as well as places that have become open for resource extraction, are pretty significant variables that have allowed for an enormous range of predictions.

5. U.S. Clean Air Act amendments dramatically reduced acid rain! It’s one of the best examples, in fact, of the potential of cap-and-trade schemes.

I actually thought you were educated but you are nuts. 

1) there is no evidence that ice sheets less today than 100 years ago because there is no starting point from before satellites. Rainforest threat is much more related to over building. Your arguments are based on 30 years of knowledge and pretending you can extrapolate them.

2) the only way to plan to for electric cars is to build more power plants and they are snuffed out by liberals. 

3) you are arguing that adaption is what saved us with population but not this.

4) environmentalist claim it, which you know.

5) you think the US 5,% drop in pollution is counteracting the 300% increase in China and India? Literally my high schools know that is dumb. 

[KDIGGZ]

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:37 AM, Orlando Tim said:

I actually thought you were educated but you are nuts. 

1) there is no evidence that ice sheets less today than 100 years ago because there is no starting point from before satellites. Rainforest threat is much more related to over building. Your arguments are based on 30 years of knowledge and pretending you can extrapolate them.

2) the only way to plan to for electric cars is to build more power plants and they are snuffed out by liberals. 

3) you are arguing that adaption is what saved us with population but not this.

4) environmentalist claim it, which you know.

5) you think the US 5,% drop in pollution is counteracting the 300% increase in China and India? Literally my high schools know that is dumb. 

 

I’ll get to your ad hominem attacks in a second. But first:

 

1. You think satellite data is necessary to understand historical ice sheet size?? El. Oh. El.

 

As I’ve repeatedly explained, we have WAY more than 30 years of climate science evidence for the troposphere and for the oceans. Extrapolation is necessary for understanding the historical stratosphere, but even for all the upper atmospheric layers we can make strong educated guesses based on other indirect evidence like from ice sheet gas bubbles (particularly from migratory ozone concentrations). You hate extrapolation probably because you have ZERO understanding of molecular physics and statistical thermodynamics (plus plasma physics, if analyses include the layers sandwiching the stratosphere from above).

 

And again…if you hate extrapolation so much, then at least offer your own explanation for WHY THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING. Tell us why we should believe your garbage science instead of consensus science.

 

And again…three decades’ worth of data points are sufficient to quantitatively define a climate. This is a mathematical/statistical/graphical argument and not a completely arbitrary definitional one.

 

One thing you got right here: deforestation practices do threaten rainforests way more than climate change (even though I never argued otherwise…but whatevs).

 

2. Agreed! Too many Luddites on the political left oppose nuclear fission power plants.

 

3. What kind of nonsensical argument is this?! Yes, of course civilization will adapt to a dystopian planetary environment because we will technically have no other choice. But do you properly understand how much money and human suffering it will cost along the way to adaptation?! Damages to global food supplies, coastal city alterations, natural disaster relief, increases in the spread of infectious diseases, vulnerable island nations, mass population exoduses from newly uninhabitable regions (such as large swaths of the Middle East)…we should try to minimize or avoid what we can of all this.

 

4. Okay…and perhaps these environmentalists were making reasonable predictions, depending on the specific assumptions of petroleum engineering tech advancements and geo-exploratory land/sea availabilities with which they were working?? That was my point. How is this relevant, anyway, to the topic of anthropogenic climate change from the perspective of professional climate SCIENTISTS??

 

5. My point here was that the U.S. government intervened and enacted meaningful change to the specific problem of North American acid rain. Yes, I’m fully aware of the general pollution problems with China and India. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t justify neglecting other problems over which we have some degree of control.

 

Now regarding your doubts of my education: If you have a BillsFans.com account, it shouldn’t take you too long to find my LinkedIn and Instagram profiles. Go ahead and evaluate my STEM credentials if you’d like. I’m wearing a blue sleeveless pencil dress in my LinkedIn pro pic and an “earthy-colored” hippy-looking bell-sleeved skater dress in my Instagram pro pic (background: the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, my absolute favorite place in our beautiful state of New York!).

 

Regarding my nuttiness: Dude...bruh…I’m a Slavic-American girl from Western New York who has endured a 17-year playoff drought and now an ongoing 13-year one. You were expecting sanity??

 

EDIT: Forgot an “s” in BillsFans.com. Great site! Former TBD PPP’er, Foxx, is the owner over there.

 

Edited April 12 by ComradeKayAdams

[4th&long]

33 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I’ll get to your ad hominem attacks in a second. But first:

 

1. You think satellite data is necessary to understand historical ice sheet size?? El. Oh. El.

 

As I’ve repeatedly explained, we have WAY more than 30 years of climate science evidence for the troposphere and for the oceans. Extrapolation is necessary for understanding the historical stratosphere, but even for all the upper atmospheric layers we can make strong educated guesses based on other indirect evidence like from ice sheet gas bubbles (particularly from migratory ozone concentrations). You hate extrapolation probably because you have ZERO understanding of molecular physics and statistical thermodynamics (plus plasma physics, if analyses include the layers sandwiching the stratosphere from above).

 

And again…if you hate extrapolation so much, then at least offer your own explanation for WHY THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING. Tell us why we should believe your garbage science instead of consensus science.

 

And again…three decades’ worth of data points are sufficient to quantitatively define a climate. This is a mathematical/statistical/graphical argument and not a completely arbitrary definitional one.

 

One thing you got right here: deforestation practices do threaten rainforests way more than climate change (even though I never argued otherwise…but whatevs).

 

2. Agreed! Too many Luddites on the political left oppose nuclear fission power plants.

 

3. What kind of nonsensical argument is this?! Yes, of course civilization will adapt to a dystopian planetary environment because we will technically have no other choice. But do you properly understand how much money and human suffering it will cost along the way to adaptation?! Damages to global food supplies, coastal city alterations, natural disaster relief, increases in the spread of infectious diseases, vulnerable island nations, mass population exoduses from newly uninhabitable regions (such as large swaths of the Middle East)…we should try to minimize or avoid what we can of all this.

 

4. Okay…and perhaps these environmentalists were making reasonable predictions, depending on the specific assumptions of petroleum engineering tech advancements and geo-exploratory land/sea availabilities with which they were working?? That was my point. How is this relevant, anyway, to the topic of anthropogenic climate change from the perspective of professional climate SCIENTISTS??

 

5. My point here was that the U.S. government intervened and enacted meaningful change to the specific problem of North American acid rain. Yes, I’m fully aware of the general pollution problems with China and India. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t justify neglecting other problems over which we have some degree of control.

 

Now regarding your doubts of my education: If you have a BillFans.com account, it shouldn’t take you too long to find my LinkedIn and Instagram profiles. Go ahead and evaluate my STEM credentials if you’d like. I’m wearing a blue sleeveless pencil dress in my LinkedIn pro pic and an “earthy-colored” hippy-looking bell-sleeved skater dress in my Instagram pro pic (background: the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, my absolute favorite place in our beautiful state of New York!).

 

Regarding my nuttiness: Dude...bruh…I’m a Slavic-American girl from Western New York who has endured a 17-year playoff drought and now an ongoing 13-year one. You were expecting sanity??

Please try to argue with this again Tim so she can make you look like an idiot again! 
 

Kay you are the only reason to come to this side of the message board. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

55 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I’ll get to your ad hominem attacks in a second. But first:

 

1. You think satellite data is necessary to understand historical ice sheet size?? El. Oh. El.

 

As I’ve repeatedly explained, we have WAY more than 30 years of climate science evidence for the troposphere and for the oceans. Extrapolation is necessary for understanding the historical stratosphere, but even for all the upper atmospheric layers we can make strong educated guesses based on other indirect evidence like from ice sheet gas bubbles (particularly from migratory ozone concentrations). You hate extrapolation probably because you have ZERO understanding of molecular physics and statistical thermodynamics (plus plasma physics, if analyses include the layers sandwiching the stratosphere from above).

 

And again…if you hate extrapolation so much, then at least offer your own explanation for WHY THE STRATOSPHERE IS COOLING WHILE THE TROPOSPHERE IS WARMING. Tell us why we should believe your garbage science instead of consensus science.

 

And again…three decades’ worth of data points are sufficient to quantitatively define a climate. This is a mathematical/statistical/graphical argument and not a completely arbitrary definitional one.

 

One thing you got right here: deforestation practices do threaten rainforests way more than climate change (even though I never argued otherwise…but whatevs).

 

2. Agreed! Too many Luddites on the political left oppose nuclear fission power plants.

 

3. What kind of nonsensical argument is this?! Yes, of course civilization will adapt to a dystopian planetary environment because we will technically have no other choice. But do you properly understand how much money and human suffering it will cost along the way to adaptation?! Damages to global food supplies, coastal city alterations, natural disaster relief, increases in the spread of infectious diseases, vulnerable island nations, mass population exoduses from newly uninhabitable regions (such as large swaths of the Middle East)…we should try to minimize or avoid what we can of all this.

 

4. Okay…and perhaps these environmentalists were making reasonable predictions, depending on the specific assumptions of petroleum engineering tech advancements and geo-exploratory land/sea availabilities with which they were working?? That was my point. How is this relevant, anyway, to the topic of anthropogenic climate change from the perspective of professional climate SCIENTISTS??

 

5. My point here was that the U.S. government intervened and enacted meaningful change to the specific problem of North American acid rain. Yes, I’m fully aware of the general pollution problems with China and India. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t justify neglecting other problems over which we have some degree of control.

 

Now regarding your doubts of my education: If you have a BillFans.com account, it shouldn’t take you too long to find my LinkedIn and Instagram profiles. Go ahead and evaluate my STEM credentials if you’d like. I’m wearing a blue sleeveless pencil dress in my LinkedIn pro pic and an “earthy-colored” hippy-looking bell-sleeved skater dress in my Instagram pro pic (background: the Long Island Central Pine Barrens, my absolute favorite place in our beautiful state of New York!).

 

Regarding my nuttiness: Dude...bruh…I’m a Slavic-American girl from Western New York who has endured a 17-year playoff drought and now an ongoing 13-year one. You were expecting sanity??

Watching this squabble from the outside looking in, I’d humbly offer that a person can be highly educated and still be nuts.  Back in my younger days, I visited the home of a lady with a PhD in somein’somein…may have been Education.  I can’t recall exactly what she was wearing, maybe purple clam diggers, a blue tube top and yellow flannel shirt tied at the navel.  Long, stringy gray hair, a bit unkempt, and a hoarder on a major scale.  Food supplies/mason jars/prepper supplies everywhere, stacked two or three feet high, maybe an 18” path meandering through the home.  I actually knocked something over, she asked me to pay for the broken jar and I did.  I feared the alternative was an aerosol spray to the face, poor Leh-n waking up later chained to a bed on a Sealy perfect sleeper, while she removed my toes with a potato peeler.  She had at least 15 that I saw in my brief time in her home.
 

Then, not long ago during COVID, a poster here-decent enough guy who is apparently quite highly educated opined that non-vaxxers should be placed on an island, and if I recall correctly, their children taken away by the State.  Bookended between those experiences spanning 40 years are a number of other experiences and stories that convince me that the two are not mutually exclusive. 
 

 

 

[4th&long]

23 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Watching this squabble from the outside looking in, I’d humbly offer that a person can be highly educated and still be nuts.  Back in my younger days, I visited the home of a lady with a PhD in somein’somein…may have been Education.  I can’t recall exactly what she was wearing, maybe purple clam diggers, a blue tube top and yellow flannel shirt tied at the navel.  Long, stringy gray hair, a bit unkempt, and a hoarder on a major scale.  Food supplies/mason jars/prepper supplies everywhere, stacked two or three feet high, maybe an 18” path meandering through the home.  I actually knocked something over, she asked me to pay for the broken jar and I did.  I feared the alternative was an aerosol spray to the face, poor Leh-n waking up later chained to a bed on a Sealy perfect sleeper, while she removed my toes with a potato peeler.  She had at least 15 that I saw in my brief time in her home.
 

Then, not long ago during COVID, a poster here-decent enough guy who is apparently quite highly educated opined that non-vaxxers should be placed on an island, and if I recall correctly, their children taken away by the State.  Bookended between those experiences spanning 40 years are a number of other experiences and stories that convince me that the two are not mutually exclusive. 
 

 

 

And this has to do with what exactly? Funny story but you can’t argue with her so you try to say she is crazy? In your feeble little brain you think this discredits her in any way? This just shows how ignorant you are.

 

 Why don’t you present a counter argument based on fact? Oh that’s right, you can’t. Thanks for telling us how little you know. Go sit down now:

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

And this has to do with what exactly? Funny story but you can’t argue with her so you try to say she is crazy? In your feeble little brain you think this discredits her in any way? This just shows how ignorant you are.

 

 Why don’t you present a counter argument based on fact? Oh that’s right, you can’t. Thanks for telling us how little you know. Go sit down now:

Settle down 4th&Smitten.  
 

I’ve interacted with Comrade Kay on this issue in the past.  I’ve acknowledged her contributions, learned a thing or two, and she’s proven more than capable of responding on her own behalf without some hormonal  patriarchal teenager coming to her defense.
Kay has shared her thoughts on my thoughts, and I’d characterize her thoughts (in my words) that I’m wrong, a climate denier, small-minded, unreasonable, uneducated and probably a few more.  

 

Respect her enough to respect her ability to handle things for herself.  It’s not 1952, she’s got a LinkedIn page for heavens sake!  
 

As for your question, Kay’s response, in part she suggested Orlando T launched an ad hominem attack.  This, after CKA shares her thoughts on the general dunderheadedness* of those who disagree with her.  
 

That got me thinking and I shared what I chose to share.  
 

*Dunderhead, I think Kay might characterize me as a dunderhead, too. 
 

Btw, the item I broke in that highly educated but nuts lady’s house cost me around $2.50.  Adjusted for inflation on this admin’s watch, I’m thinking it would cost me a ten spot or more.   Thanks a lot shrinkflation.