[Rancid]

We need Geo-Engineering.

agree

[BlutoSays]

Lurkers, I and others on this site have already proven that he is just wrong.

He keeps coming back to make his baseless assertions as if they are facts.
.

Steve, stop pushing your bogus political science and masking it as science.


https://www.heartland.org/_template-ass ... Report.pdf

[Pants-of-dog]

The Heartland Institute has been known for trying to censor scientists and journalists who discuss their (i.e the Heartland Institute’s) leak of documents.

This leak of documents showed a plan to discredit climate science, influence teachers, and pay climate skeptic scientists to publish misinformation.

[BlutoSays]

The Heartland Institute has been known for trying to censor scientists and journalists who discuss their (i.e the Heartland Institute’s) leak of documents.

This leak of documents showed a plan to discredit climate science, influence teachers, and pay climate skeptic scientists to publish misinformation.

So you say. If you can show anything false in the document, bring it forth. Otherwise, STFU, you leftist POS (redundant).

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

Your link does not work. So I can not read the document.

Quote the text.

[late]

The Heartland Institute has been known for trying to censor scientists and journalists who discuss their (i.e the Heartland Institute’s) leak of documents.

This leak of documents showed a plan to discredit climate science, influence teachers, and pay climate skeptic scientists to publish misinformation.

Heartland is a Koch organisation.

Koch funds most Big Oil propaganda, and has an army of paid trolls on the internet, another army of lobbyists in DC, another army of guys that write kooky state legislative proposals, actually there are several armies that work the state level.

He's genuinely wacko. He lives a couple thousand miles from Maine. But when we passed gay marriage, he spent a million bucks (Maine doesn't spend a lot on politics) to kill it. Of course, we can back in the next election, and passed it again.

But that begs the question, why is he spending big bucks against something like gay marriage on the other side of the country?

That's just an example, a small city wanted to update it's old zoo, he spent serious money trying to kill the referenda. The zoo had those old fashioned small cages that are now considered abusive.

Koch has over 100 organisations. To give you an idea of how much power he has, he tried a hostile takeover of the Republican party.

He wants to run the country (into the ground) from the shadows.

[BlutoSays]

The Heartland Institute has been known for trying to censor scientists and journalists who discuss their (i.e the Heartland Institute’s) leak of documents.

This leak of documents showed a plan to discredit climate science, influence teachers, and pay climate skeptic scientists to publish misinformation.

Maybe you should upgrade your 56K modem.

[BlutoSays]

Heartland is a Koch organisation.

Koch funds most Big Oil propaganda, and has an army of paid trolls on the internet, another army of lobbyists in DC, another army of guys that write kooky state legislative proposals, actually there are several armies that work the state level.

He's genuinely wacko. He lives a couple thousand miles from Maine. But when we passed gay marriage, he spent a million bucks (Maine doesn't spend a lot on politics) to kill it. Of course, we can back in the next election, and passed it again.

But that begs the question, why is he spending big bucks against something like gay marriage on the other side of the country?

That's just an example, a small city wanted to update it's old zoo, he spent serious money trying to kill the referenda. The zoo had those old fashioned small cages that are now considered abusive.

Koch has over 100 organisations. To give you an idea of how much power he has, he tried a hostile takeover of the Republican party.

He wants to run the country (into the ground) from the shadows.

Is this George Soros posting?

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

If you provide the name and author of the “article”, I can look it up easily.

Having said that, the Heartland is an openly biased source.

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays

Your link does not work. So I can not read the document.

Quote the text.

I'm not quoting the document. You'll read it or you won't. I don't really GAF.


Your "science" is bogus and everyone knows it.

[late]

Is this George Soros posting?

No, just a guy that has had Koch repeatedly dump mud in my mashed potatoes..

[BlutoSays]

Back to the subject at hand......


Steve, stop pushing your bogus political science and masking it as science.


https://www.heartland.org/_template-ass ... Report.pdf

[late]

Your "science" is bogus and everyone knows it.

As someone that has studied the history, and philosophy, of science; as well has having had basic college level training..

You can't tell science from a hole in the ground.

[late]

heartland

Let me make this simpler for you, Heartland is trash.

[BlutoSays]

Let me make this simpler for you, Heartland is trash.

Let me make it even simpler for you: your politics and views are shit and everyone is seeing how your ideology destroys progress.

All the economi and crime stats and the drop in standards of living are due to your worldview. We're living what you wanted, and the majority are not on board with it, regardless of what you think.

November is coming. Do you have your cardboard box ready?

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays

The paper contends that most of the thermometers used to record global warming are placed incorrectly and this siting error causes the data to show a global warming that is not real.

Is this what you are claiming?

[Rich]

So, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I believe you're quoting a line from "Cool Hand Luke" here. Note in the film and I believe the book and stage play as well, there is no indefinite article. I think it would be better without the indefinite article here, implying a continuing failure to communicate rather than merely the failure of a one off event.

[Pants-of-dog]

@BlutoSays cited a report from the Heartland Institute that claims that global warming is not real.

Instead, the article claims, this is an error based on improper siting of thermometers. The weather stations that give us the surface temperature data are mostly located close to heat sources, and this improper location and the adjacent heat source are responsible for the measured warming.

So, this claim was studied and here is what the scientists found:

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
Matthew J. Menne,1 Claude N. Williams Jr.,1 and Michael A. Palecki1
Received 27 August 2009; revised 24 December 2009; accepted 7 January 2010; published 8 June 2010.
[1] Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability
of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluate the potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf

So there is a slight bias from these improperly placed weather sensors. But it shows that the Earth is cooling, not warming. Lol.

[BlutoSays]

Documentation from 2009? Alrighty then.



I guess we can enter this into the record also.

[Pants-of-dog]

Documentation from 2009? Alrighty then.



I guess we can enter this into the record also.

Are you making an argument?

If so, what is it?