fauxlaw

This has been my experience with climate change deniers

I do not deny that climate changes. Of course it does. Nor am I the one who claims it must not change by more than ±1.5º C, am I? Of course, it must change, and by more than a sliver. This is not Camelot. And we're not overpopulated, either. We're piss-poor at land management.

I'll give you an example of forward thinking by a people we call ancient, when maybe they had the right idea all along;

The above is the Egyptian hieroglyph word for "sand." It is pronounced /shay/. It is read L-to-R, beginning with the upper left glyph, which represents a pool of water. Wishful thinking, or just a desire for what once was, but is now gone? A rainforest where now there is just sand, now called the Sahara. All that happened before human existence on Earth, so, yes, we are responsible for some climate change, but not the whole bloody thing.

Debby,

 the current problem with food in America.

Food isn't the problem. The problem is entirely in what we decide goes in the pie hole. Why do you think I call it that? Because we are the problem, not the food. We decide it's a pie hole, not an apple hole.

You'll be telling us next

Yes, crude oil, being completely organic, is now in production, and has been for a couple of billion years, and counting, for as long as life continues to exist on Earth. Yes, that's called "renewable."

No, Al Gore is not an antichrist; he lacks the brain cells to reach that low. He's just an inconvenient pothole in the road.

I openly worship my Savior and Redeemer every day. He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

And just posted what I'm telling you next in Culture.

In California, in the Mojave Desert, was a health spa resort at the end of a road, 4.5 miles from I-15 to the resort. The name of the road is Zzyzx Road. In the alphabetical list of roads in the U.S., this road is the last. The resort is no longer there, but the road remains. The man who established the resort, and had the road paved and named, was thought eccentric. Though a resident of CA for 58 years, I have passed the freeway exit to Zzyzx Road countless times, but never took the exit to see the end of the road.

I use this road example to ask the title question, which refers to a road that is not as bizarre by name, but exceeds bizarre in attitude.

The road? That of human gender by declaration rather than by science. Now, the argument is one I would have thought, when I played scholastic sports in high school [and I was hardly alone in 1965 - 1967], utterly insane, not merely bizarre. Now, I must reset the bizarre/insane threshold. Here it is:

Imagine a guy dressed in an eagle suit, feathers, talons, beak, who swoops out of the sky on a guy in a cocker spaniel puppy suit, takes the puppy in his talons and flies away with it, killing it savagely to eat later at the nest.

The police are called in by the people who own the puppy, They show the blood on the ground, pictures of the puppy, and the fact that the puppy is now missing. They show the door cam footage capturing the eagle's actions taking the puppy. The police find the eagle, the remains of the puppy in the nest, and arrest the eagle for murder.

The eagle protests, and several people protest the arrest, supporting the eagle's side, declaring him an eagle merely doing what eagles do naturally.

But he's not an eagle, he's a human man, the D.A. replies, who has indicted the man for murder, and has confiscated the eagle suit as evidence [it has blood on it, identified as human blood, although the victim was dressed in a dog suit.

Absurd, you say? Well, having already argued that a man belongs in women's sports, just how far down that road are you willing to go?

Sure, I was aware, but just because I see something written, I'm supposed to believe its validity?

Particularly when it comes to statistical data - and this climate change crap is all about the data - there are a few questions I must have valid answers to before I ever trust the data to be accurate, repeatable, & reproducible:

1. Are the features identified to be measured the features that will accurately provide relative data to reflect what is needed for expected design performance and statistical analysis?
2. Do those features to be measured have adequate tolerance bands to qualify those features to design quality expectations?
3. Is the measurement equipment specified for these features capable to a factor of 10x trighter than the features' design tolerance bands?
4. Have all measurement equipment specified for use been calibrated on schedule and is the last calibration recorded and still in force?
5. Was calibration performed on all measurement equipment by a qualified technician [proven by training records on file], and is the calibration report on file for each measurement equipment?
6. Does each piece of measurement equipment have an associated Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility report on file?
7. Are all measurement technicians qualified by training results on each measurement equipment, and are the training records on file?
8. Are the raw data collection sheets of features measurement results recorded and on file?
9. Do all features measurement data demonstrate six sigma standard deviation results, or better, on all featutes measurements?
10. Where corrective/preventive action is required on any of the previous questions that fail to meet the standard, are such actions taken, certified, recorded, and filed for review?

With acceptable answers to these questions satisfied, now I'll look at the raw data, and the statistical analysis from it.

If these questions are not satisfactorily answered, I distrust the data. Period. In my career, I failed more companies than I accepted because they simply waffled on answers to these questions, so I trust statistical data on climate change measurement about as far as I can throw a garbage data sheet into the wind.

Who wrote the logs?

Who had access to the logs?

On what evidence/observation were the logs written?

Okay… so democrats suck too, what’s your point?

Uhhh, that.

neither privacy or free speech laws would prevent us from making submission of taxes a requirement

That's correct. So, have you written to your Congressman and Senators to write/sponsor legislation to insist presidential candidates submit tax returns to qualify a campaign for president?

It isn't going to happen any too soon without that effort on your part, and, otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Glad to. Show me how I am robbing the poor in my extended area when I contributre 20% of my increase annually directly to the poor who exist around me in my area. Some of them, I know personally, and they are grateful for my help. Some of them gave up on education, and I have taught them how to do it. That, alone, can lift them to self-sufficiency, and they are trying to get there. My investments over the past 40 years have been good to me, and I am certain some I am helping will raise themselves out of poverty to personal wealth, by their own efforts.

Some of those I help came from good, middle-class homes, but for whatever reason - usually personal lack of ambition- did not finish high school. Their choice, and they acknowledge it. They know they disadvantaged themselves. Some are now completing GEDs, and a couple plan on further education through night school.

Your "basketball" game [inconsistent rules with reality, because that's not how either basketball, or a free market economy works]. That said, your scoring is manipulated to support your argument, which is not real, either. So, play another game and we'll talk,

My friend, you must have missed why the claim of "global warming/climate change" was debunked:

From my initial post:

"One would think by now, that NOOA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] would have standardized by the same measurement method and equipment and locations, alloweiong for technical improvement of measurement. However, NOOA says of itself 

"NOAA's global temperature records have never been collected using the exact same measurement methods, equipment, or unchanging station locations for any length of time..."

How in the hell do you expect accurate data when NOAA, itself, admits it does not standardize measurement equipment, method, or location to assure that data remains consistently sensitive to movement in measurement results? Those standards are not just critical, but absolutely, urgently necessary to ensure acceptable data is used. I am a former certified Six Sigma Black Belt. I lived and breathed statistics for 30 years of my life, NOAAA's admission is a bad joke, and worse for funding. It would not surprise me that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord for just that reason. Why throw money, more than any other nation, was throwing by far - to a failure of methodology?

I don't trust the accuracy of the data in your little graph [#3] for squat. Nor NOAA. Must be an acronym for Never Orderly Accurate Arithmetic.

Debby,

You're actually going to cry to me that because Trump pulled the majority financial backing of the Paris Accord, forest fires and heat records resulted? really?

Personal experience of excessive TDS - sniffing?

The title of this string is a quote from 19th/20th-century philosopher George Santayana. He was talking about how we escape, to our peril, from embracing what is uncomfortable fact by satisfaction with theory.

Theory, such as what was once called "global warming," because we thought, then, that each year, the average world temperature was rising. That claim was debunked when, in 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, a climate change UN directive established in 2016, under the Obama administration, to which the United States was contributing the greatest percentage of financial support, because we were convinced climate change was an existential threat.

When we pulled out, the world cried foul, screamed at the moon, and tore their hair out for the U.S. affront to their sensitive brains, making more sensitive, still. One would think by now, that NOOA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association] would have standardized by the same measurement method and equipment and locations, alloweiong for technical improvement of measurement. However, NOOA says of itself

"NOAA's global temperature records have never been collected using the exact same measurement methods, equipment, or unchanging station locations for any length of time, because the global observing network has continuously evolved and expanded since records began in 1850. Instead of relying on identical static equipment or fixed locations, scientists maintain long-term consistency by tracking temperature anomalies (the difference from a long-term average) rather than absolute temperatures." https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.noaaglobaltemp.html

By the way, while one would think NOOA resides within a technical cocoon, it is actually within the U.S. Department of Commerce. That's science? It's commerce, certainly, but...

Carl Jung once said, "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong."

Debby has convinced herself she is the 10th Justice on the Court; there excusively to adjudicate TDS cases.

btw, the Court has not revised anything about its Trump v. U.S. case decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

What's in a name? See Shakespeare. Cure for TDS.

The Marxists are wrong [not just by this];

Religion is not the opiate of the people. Obesity is.

Debby,

 America ranks last overall among wealthy countries in healthcare.

Three things;

1. "Fast food" probably the worst method of food delivery ever developed, not because of the convenience [drive-up], but because of the poor quality
2. "We are what we consume." We put more junk in our bodies than is healthy, and that means more than through the pie hole. It's a fact that
3. American consumerism, while more plentiful than just about anywhere else, is also more damaging by our choice than anywhere else. And that has little to do with the quality of healthcare professionalism and more to do with our personal stupidity re: our personal healthcare. We would utterly wipe out over 80% of our most critical diseases we face [heart disease, cancer, diabetes] just by our personal decision to limit our consumption of junk.

Then you are talking to yourself because this doesn’t address a single thing I’ve argued in this thread.

I was unaware that I am obligated to respond to everything you post. Mostly, in fact, sorry to say, I ignore it.

But you continue to maintain that wealth begets wealth, and that is only true under a system [capitalism] that encourages [not forces] one to know how to

CREATE wewath. People who steal wealth do so because they either don't know how to create it themselves or don't want to bother doing it themselves, since they think they can get it by theft. But, wealth just does not grow on trees, as they say, and there is a reason for it, unless the product of trees [fruit] is that person's business.

You literally live in a society where 1% of the nation owns more wealth than the bottom half combined and you don’t think statement is true, that is incredibly absurd.

That just tells me that 1% of society knows how to create wealth better than the other 99%. So what? We are all free to learn, and continue learning, and take advantage of that education. Also true in this country, the most significant cause of poverty in this country is the lack of sufficient education, i.e., obtaining at least a high school education. That much is free of any tuition, isn't it? But, the more education, the better. That's called ambition, and one either has it, or they don't. Tell me that ambition is evil. On the face of it, I'll tell you you're wrong. It all depends on what each of us decide what we'll do with ambition. That poor decision is what makes it evil, not the thing, itself.

Clueless aka ignorant and/or in denial of humans detrimental effects on climate via our effects on our ecological environment.

Show me where I have ever said that humans have zero effect on Earth's environment. Show me. Then accuse me. But, no, your entire waste of cyberspace by your tirade against me of your #34 is a blind accusation. No, I have never said humans have zero effect. All I have said is Earth has seen more violent and destructive environments before man ever populated Earth. That is a true account of Earth's history. What is also true is that excessive sums have been paid to no effect to clean the clouds or the water to the degree that is needed. Ad that until Green has a viable alternative to completely replace the 60%-plus of pretrol's contribution to the energy grid, it is idiotic to cancel the use of renewable fossil fuel. Yes, it is. It's organic, therefore renewable. Show me the green energy that is organic.

Try again, boyo.

Debby,

The prediction of China's economy overtaking ours in 30 years is old, and now debunked news. Try to keep up. Fact: The wealth in private hands in the U.S. is 73% greater than in China, and we corner the market on the count of billionaires in the world at nearly 29%. Publicly, our GDP surpasses China by 59.6%.

Net result: I would place no bets on your opinion.

And, no. Chona does not know how to create wealth, either. They play their money game, still, by manipulating the worth of the Chnese RMB, which is cheating by any legitmate currency valuation. China is still communist, and that is a theft of wealth, not the creation of it.

You are absolutrely right. The Democrat Party may have declared "war on poverty" by LBJ, but not by him, nor since have they demonstrated, since FDR, they know how to fight a war. even by metaphor.

El Sayed is taking a walk-back tour to apologize to Jews in MI. That will have the effect of walking back the few fractional percentage points by which he won the primary.

Typical Democrat Party strategy: be sure every platform plank has its antithesis.

Good plan.

Yet again, what you are calling socialism is not an alternative to capitalism, it’s a set of policy ideas that exist within capitalism. So your separation of these two things leads to nothing but incoherence, you’re attacking a strawman.

Sorry, my friend, but you completely misunderstand my argument. I am not creating a strawman trying to argue "...a set of policy ideas that exist within capitalism." I am arguing that neither communism nor socialism knows how to create personal wealth by policy. They are completely dumb to the process, which is why they do not endure more than a single human lifetime. They depend on other people's money, and when that has expired, they are done. Dead.

Attaining wealth is only possible in an organized society that operates based on rules defining how wealth can be attained in the first place.

No! One can attain wealth by theft of it. That is exactly what C/S does, because they do not know how to obtain it by the very means you described in the above quote. What C/S cannot do is to continue to build on stolen wealth. They know only how to spend what they have previously taken.

Yes. Here's an updated cartoon I created and published in a non-fiction volume in 2019 that is the origin of my username, titled "Faux Law," a treatment of examination of constitutional language, written in the 18th century, but interpreted incorrectly by the 21st. Words evolve, but that does not mean they should be read by an "evolved" dictionary. Best to understand words in the context of when they were written, and we almost never do.

I have millions of years-worth of Earth data against an alarmist crowd that thinks we can control Earth's climate by throwing money at the clouds. Any attempt I've made at throwing money in that direction ends up with every penny back on the ground, some on my head, first. I learned the first time that was stupid. You know what Einstein said about repetition expecting different results...

The same crowd, coincidentally, tries to convince us that men can be impregnated. The same crowd tells us they cannot define "woman."

Three strikes says the batter is out. On deck...

Hydrogen weapons do nothing to have greater control over the ecological system

I said nothing with regard to weapons, whether cap guns to nuclear. I'm not going there.

Denial of truth --acceleratring Erratic Climate Change--- is just your confinued repeating a false narrative and a lack your approach to your claims of ..' superior intelligence'.. .Clueless humanity is about profit greed over all else.

Perhaps you ought to look at a more mature science than climatology, like geology. I'll repeat to you what I just posted to SatanLucy in another thread:

Yes, looking at Earth's climatology in the short term would lead to that conclusion; perhaps the last 10 - 20,000 years, or so. But the fact is, geological scientists [a much older and more mature science than climatology, which has been a "science" for only the last 200 years] have known this since the mid-nineteenth century, that we are in a current ice age, called the Quaternary Glaciation Period. 

Modern geology formally pins the start of the Quaternary Period and its ice age cycles at 2.58 million years ago, a timeline ratified in 2009 by the International Union of Geological Sciences based on deep-sea core samples. https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/living-in-the-new-ice-age/

In the late 19th century, we discovered that within a single ice age, there are alternating periods of glaciation [expansion of glaciers] and interglaciation periods [receding glaciers]. https://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/content/discoveryofmultiiceages.html

We are currently in the latter, therefore measuring rising temperatures. That this cycle of alternating periods of cold and warm will continue, just as we observe the same phenomenon on other planets and even the Sun.

In other words, climate science needs to grow up.

Usually women don't succeed well in USA.

That's because we've been sniffing Europe's butt for the past 140 years, and, unfortunately, liking the aroma. Time for USA to manifest our destiny intellectually, not cartographically. In that respect, Trump is short-sighted.

Oh global warming is real.

Yes, looking at Earth's climatology in the short term would lead to that conclusion; perhaps the last 10 - 20,000 years, or so. But the fact is, geological scientists [a much older and more mature science than climatology, which has been a "science" for only the last 200 years] have known this since the mid-nineteenth century, that we are in a current ice age, called the Quaternary Glaciation Period.

Modern geology formally pins the start of the Quaternary Period and its ice age cycles at 2.58 million years ago, a timeline ratified in 2009 by the International Union of Geological Sciences based on deep-sea core samples. https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/living-in-the-new-ice-age/

In the late 19th century, we discovered that within a single ice age, there are alternating periods of glaciation [expansion of glaciers] and interglaciation periods [receding glaciers]. https://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/content/discoveryofmultiiceages.html

We are currently in the latter, therefore measuring rising temperatures. That this cycle of alternating periods of cold and warm will continue, just as we observe the same phenomenon on other planets and even the Sun.

In. otyher words, climate science needs to grow up.

AI is getting to the point...

It should be said that programmers are getting to that point, because I still don't believe AI is capable of independent thought, as demonstrated by my Egyptian hieroglyph translation experiment. As I said, I don't believe 1:10,000 programmers understand that language to feed it to AI. Yes, they could blindly feed the 3,500-plus ideographs to AI, and the separate Roman characters and phonics they represent, but that alone is not expected literacy.