The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
At some point, for it to be believable, my personal observations have to agree with the paid scientific community. That's when you will get true consensus. We're not even close to that point.
It does prove something. The data is unreliable. It's very easy to calibrate and decipher data from several satellites compared to thousands of everchanging temperature stations spread around the globe and monitored by volunteers.
Satellites are not the best instruments we have if they do not show the warming we want to see. Ocean temperature buoys are also not the best instruments we have because they do not show the same level of warming as water drawn into a freighter's engine. The instrumentation is only good if it creates enough hysteria to guarantee more funding.
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
We have to pay attention to thousands of thermometers located world wide and keep track of how the terrain and structures have evolved over the 100 years or so that some of them have been in place. Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.
Satellites are much simpler to keep track of. Orbital decay and sensor degradation is constant and known. The satellites are also under constant control and watch of their operators. Clearly, their data is far more reliable. It also doesn't show as much warming.
One is a picture of a NOAA temperature station in situ next to a large electrical transformer , the other is a rendering of a NOAA satellite in orbit. Whenever we get a alarming story like this they use the data collected from terrestrial stations located next to heat emitting electrical transformers and disregard data collected from satellites.
You stop paying attention to temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites that we put into orbit for a specific reason.
<p><a href="http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG">This?</a></p><p><a href="http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg">Or this?</a><p>I wonder which this news scare story is using and why?</p>
Would you say that people were free in countries where economic equality was the ultimate objective? I'd also like to know which libertarian socialist country had a fantastically good economy.
Why do you keep injecting libertarianism into this? I was speaking to liberalism.
Charles Fourier was a Utopian Socialist. He did not coin the term libertarian. Even if he was a libertarian socialist, that makes him a socialist not a libertarian. If he were a socialist libertarian, then you could make that case, but he was not.
Libertarian does not mean anarcho-socialist, it means libertarian, or one who adheres to the principles of freedom. Charles Fourier was not one of them. One who would impose economic equality onto others, violates the central principle of libertarianism and is by definition not a libertarian. And is certainly not a liberal.
I notice that you say that there has been a libertarian socialist country (you refused to name it) and that it's economy worked fantastically. Worked as in the past tense. What happened to it?
What did I say above that leads you to think I believe American Greed worship is libertarian? What makes you think Socialist greed or the belief that one is entitled to the wealth of another through the use of force is libertarian, capitalist, American, or even liberal? If you paid for that "education" upon which you are committing a great disservice, you got ripped off.
That's ridiculous. I am not a Libertarian, but you are an idiot if you think liber means free as in beer. Socialism and liberalism are mutually exclusive.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds good. But its not true in practice. There's pictures of all sorts of poorly sited stations.
What does record temperature directly?
When was the sea level 6 or 7 inches lower than it is now?
Each satellite uses multiple discrete systems for measuring temperature.
Actually that should read RATPAC, not satellite. Anyways, the data is constant, the method of adjustment is always in flux.
The new creationism? One side expects everyone to make personal sacrifices in order to ensure our eternal salvation. We are told to trust and obey the people that interpret the truth and relay it to us in terms the flock can understand. We are forced to tithe to support the interpreters by their enforcers. If we start to stray from official doctrine, we are branded heretics and face exclusion from polite society.
The other side questions authority, remains skeptical, and as a result is branded as being in denial of the true word of the new gods. Open your eyes.
At some point, for it to be believable, my personal observations have to agree with the paid scientific community. That's when you will get true consensus. We're not even close to that point.
It does prove something. The data is unreliable. It's very easy to calibrate and decipher data from several satellites compared to thousands of everchanging temperature stations spread around the globe and monitored by volunteers.
My guess is they added a new correction scheme to the satellite data around the year 2000.
Satellites are not the best instruments we have if they do not show the warming we want to see. Ocean temperature buoys are also not the best instruments we have because they do not show the same level of warming as water drawn into a freighter's engine. The instrumentation is only good if it creates enough hysteria to guarantee more funding.
They aren't constant, but the factors are well known and predictable. They are also under complete control and observation of their operators, unlike the thousands of surface stations located world wide.
We have to pay attention to thousands of thermometers located world wide and keep track of how the terrain and structures have evolved over the 100 years or so that some of them have been in place. Ho do you compensate for the increase in temperature caused by a new adjacent parking lot, or if someone decides to put an air conditioner in a window 10 feet away.
Satellites are much simpler to keep track of. Orbital decay and sensor degradation is constant and known. The satellites are also under constant control and watch of their operators. Clearly, their data is far more reliable. It also doesn't show as much warming.
Granted, this happened while it was being built, but the damage was fixed before launch.
One is a picture of a NOAA temperature station in situ next to a large electrical transformer , the other is a rendering of a NOAA satellite in orbit. Whenever we get a alarming story like this they use the data collected from terrestrial stations located next to heat emitting electrical transformers and disregard data collected from satellites.
Thanks!
I did, I thought the preview was lying. I used the same format that I see when I quote a parent post. So what did I do wrong?
You stop paying attention to temperature recording stations, which have never been a constant, and you rely on multimillion dollar satellites that we put into orbit for a specific reason.
What am I doing wrong?
This?
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG
Or this?
http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg
Which does this scare story use, and why?
Fuck
<p><a href="http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/cordova1.JPG">This?</a></p><p><a href="http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0906/noaa-19.jpg">Or this?</a><p>I wonder which this news scare story is using and why?</p>
The definition of libertarianism that you know, primarily the one of Noam Chomsky, is laughable.
Would you say that people were free in countries where economic equality was the ultimate objective? I'd also like to know which libertarian socialist country had a fantastically good economy.
Why do you keep injecting libertarianism into this? I was speaking to liberalism.
Charles Fourier was a Utopian Socialist. He did not coin the term libertarian. Even if he was a libertarian socialist, that makes him a socialist not a libertarian. If he were a socialist libertarian, then you could make that case, but he was not.
Libertarian does not mean anarcho-socialist, it means libertarian, or one who adheres to the principles of freedom. Charles Fourier was not one of them. One who would impose economic equality onto others, violates the central principle of libertarianism and is by definition not a libertarian. And is certainly not a liberal.
I notice that you say that there has been a libertarian socialist country (you refused to name it) and that it's economy worked fantastically. Worked as in the past tense. What happened to it?
What did I say above that leads you to think I believe American Greed worship is libertarian? What makes you think Socialist greed or the belief that one is entitled to the wealth of another through the use of force is libertarian, capitalist, American, or even liberal? If you paid for that "education" upon which you are committing a great disservice, you got ripped off.
That's ridiculous. I am not a Libertarian, but you are an idiot if you think liber means free as in beer. Socialism and liberalism are mutually exclusive.