Moonbat Exterminator wrote: JR, your assertion that computing a single number for the average temperature of the planet is mathematically impossible is incorrect. It would in fact be a simple, straightforward calculation. In statistics, it's called the mean of sampling means. The weakness of such a statistic is that the enormous variability in the data far exceeds the variability in that number. Even the 90 % confidence interval would be much larger than the variations in that average, making it useless from a practical standpoint. - Al Gore Warming
I think we are talking about two different things, but your post actually proves my point.
I live in Colorado where temperatures can vary quite a bit from place to place, even covering only short distances.
I drove about 5 miles yesterday and experienced a temperature difference of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit. And that’s not because of huge altitude differences.
Unless you can account for those differences everywhere, and map them according to the area occupied for each temperature, which you can’t possibly do, there is no real average temperature for the planet. Not one that has any real significance.
The larger point, which I think we both agree on, is that for purposes of global warming, no actual “average” temperature has been calculated that’s meaningful in the debate.
hal_incandeza wrote: "In May of 2012, the Heartland Institute hosted its biggest ever- and seventh ever-International Conference on Climate Change..."
Right, that's why they are discontinuing their conference for lack of funding. What a great success.
Dear Comrade Hal,
Your comment would be interesting if it was actually true.
But like a lot of things that liberals talk about it’s not accurate; wishful thinking maybe, but not correct.
In fact, Heartland just held their 8th annual Climategate conference in Europe. As Joe Bast from Heartland blogs: “Our Eighth International Conference on Climate Change, held in Munich on November 30-December 1, 2012, was a huge success. We’ve got projects on climate already lined up for 2013 that make 2012 look like a dress rehearsal.”
If you have any sense of history, you’ll understand that some of the debate surrounding “climate-change” is really due to ubiquity. We have the ability to observe more data and we have the ability to trumpet more observations as fact.
But the debate is no different than many debates regarding unproven scientific theories.
In the first half of the 20th Century, Communism and Socialism were treated by scientists as rational, settled economic sciences. We know today, after a full century of failures that the basis of those theories was incorrect.
So, of course, that’s one explanation why liberals are so ready to embrace them again.
Canetoad wrote: I thought it was the private sector that was supposed to create all the jobs.- Obama’s Psycho Job Phobia
Dear Comrade Toad,
There are about 143 million jobs, of which 25 million are government jobs. That’s leaves us with 118 million private sector jobs to pay for the 25 million government jobs.
So, ya; the private sector is where jobs are created.
Kathy18 wrote: How long will Americans continue to believe and accept that everything is all the Republicans fault? Is there a time limit? How bad will things have to get before they will question the white house? - Obama’s Psycho Job Phobia
They will continue to believe it until the GOP actually stands for something other than government lite.
Hmiller wrote: Spacejob Ransom; The last Congress fillibustered three (3) Jobs Bills in Committee, not allowing debate to occur on the Senate floor. Those fillibusters are part of the latest Republican record for fillibusters = obstructionism. Note how many times I used the word fillibuster? Seems like they were part of a plan to cause Obama's failure - and to heck with the Country. Is this what you call conservatism? Sure is different from the twenty years of my being a registered Republican. - Obama’s Psycho Job Phobia
Dear Comrade H,
Wow! Three (3) “jobs” bills, huh?
The Democrats could have passed whatever jobs bill they wanted in 2009.
Oh, yeah; they did pass one. It cost about a trillion dollars. And it created no jobs.
That’s the real reason why the bills never made the Senate floor. Neither side wanted to vote on any new Obama spending proposals, especially not in the Senate.
If truth-in-labeling requirements applied to Obama, the FTC would have shutdown any one of Obama’s self-titled “my job bills.”
You want jobs? Let them build the Keystone Pipeline. There’s already 55,000 miles of crude oil pipe in the United States and another 305,000 miles of gas pipeline. The whole idea that somehow the Keystone project represents an unmanageable threat to our environment is completely, 100 percent false.
The only thing Keystone threatens is the enviro-whackos who will be shutdown if the pipeline is built.
DagNabbit wrote: Why are we made to suffer thru this guy's simpleminded columns TWICE? This was remarkably boring and stupid the first time; reading it again is like being force-fed a second helping of cod liver oil. Thanks, Headmaster, but I've had sufficient. Blecccchhhhh. - It's a Christie Thing
Dear Comrade Nabbit,
Very easy answer to that one: You were made to suffer through my “simpleminded columns TWICE” because in your liberal-mindedness you chose to read them TWICE.
Seriously, it must be relaxing being a liberal. You don’t have to take responsibility for ANYTHING. You can read something once, hate it, and then read it again and blame your own actions in reading it again on someone else.
You seem like the type of guy who’d stick his tongue on a frozen pole, and then do it again, just because you’re a liberal.
Note to Comrade H above: When you pass a bad bill that doesn’t work, you needn’t pass it TWICE to discover it won’t work, again.
Xjnyc_2013 wrote: All anyone needs to know about the kind of person Ransom is summed up with his statement "I know nothing about Jersey but I don't like it." Perfect example of a Dumb Toad - forming an opinion about something or someone when you're absolutely clueless. - It's a Christie Thing
Dear Comrade X,
Comrade Toad? I think you have the wrong guy.
See above; see below for anything relating to Toad.
But if you’re going to quote me, probably you should get it right:
“Let me say on the record that I don’t really care about New Jersey. I know very little about it. But, I know this much: I don’t want to live there and I don’t want the rest of the United States to resemble New Jersey.”
Michael160 wrote: I'm sorry, but Southern ideas are not going to lead the country. You are not going to win with the South and some sparsely populated Western states. The South is basically an internal colony ever since it lost the war, a backward cultural area that is useful only as a place under US law that has lower wages and worker protections. - It's a Christie Thing
Dear Comrade Michael,
The South a backwater? How 1960s of you.
Have you ever been to Atlanta or Charlotte?
Here’s a list of prominent companies located in Charlotte from Wikipedia:The following Fortune 500 companies are headquartered in the Charlotte metropolitan area, in order of their rank: Bank of America, Lowe's in suburban Mooresville, Nucor (steel producer), Duke Energy, Sonic Automotive, Family Dollar, Goodrich Corporation, SPX Corporation (industrial technology), Domtar (in suburban Fort Mill), Chiquita Brands International (which announced on November 29, 2011, it was relocating its headquarters to Charlotte from Cincinnati). Other major companies headquartered or with corporate operations in Metro Charlotte include: Extended Stay Hotels, Babcock and Wilcox, RSC Brands, TIAA-CREF, Time Warner Cable (formerly a business unit of Fortune 500 company Time Warner), Speed Channel, ESPNU, Continental Tire the Americas, LLC., Muzak,Belk, Harris Teeter, Meineke Car Care Center, Lance, Inc, Carolina Foods Inc, Bojangles', Carlisle Companies, Electrolux, LendingTree, Compass Group USA, Food Lion, and Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (the nation's second largest Coca-Cola bottler). U.S. Airways regional carrier CCAir was headquartered in Charlotte.
You obviously spend no time in Dixie.
Great people, great food, great culture.
GHE wrote: Mr. Ransom is often so full of partisan spleen that he negates the value of his articles. But, he acknowledged here at least that Republicans have been part of the problem and I agree with him that liberalism is the greater part of the problem. Unfortunately, he has no solution either as what to do when both sides and the voters seem determined to keep this course. One solution, Ron Paul, was generally…[Editor’s note: Yawn]. - The 25th Annual No Pants Senate
Dear Comrade GHE,
Ha! Ron Paul! A solution? Ron? Paul? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Sigh,
Canetoad wrote: Geez John, I live in Australia, where the Bureau of Meteorology just had to add a new color to the heat mapping index to represent temperatures above 50 degrees C, where we just had the seven hottest days EVER. But nah, you keep your head firmly planted up your backside, it will probably be cooler there. - So Fake It’s Real: Global Warming is Reality TV for the Media Elite
Dear Comrade Toad,
Did I ever tell you how much I loved your Wild Ride at Disney when I was a kid?
I really did.
It’s hard to make the column twice in one week. But you did it!
Where you going to go next?
“I’m going to Disney!”
All the information you provided about basic shapes and colors that average Australians recognize is very cool.
And updating the map would be a great idea if Australia actually enjoyed temperatures in the 50 degree Celsius range.
But they don’t. The record high in Australia is 50.7 degrees Celsius set at Oodnadatta, in 1960.
A little digging shows that bureaucrats added the extra color in anticipation of temperatures above 50 degrees Celsius.
"The forecast coming from the bureau's model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees," said David Jones, head of the bureau's climate monitoring and prediction unit said on January 8th. Except of course temperatures never crossed 47 degrees Celsius line, which is about 6 degrees Fahrenheit under the predicted range.
As the bureau itself noted, “large parts of central Australia have limited monitoring.”
If large parts of Australia still have limited monitoring in the 21st Century, how much monitoring happened in the 20th Century?
Might it be that it’s our extended monitoring, rather than changes in weather pattern, that cause us to observe new patterns?
Canetoad wrote: Climate change is estimated to cost the world economy $1.2 trillion annually, which is proving to be a stress test for the insurance industry. Lest you think that's a niche concern, insurance accounts for seven percent of the global economy and is the world’s largest industry. Many insurers are using climate science to better quantify and diversify their exposure, more accurately price and communicate risk, and target adaptation and loss-prevention efforts. But what would they know eh, John............... Mr Businessman extraordinaire. May your children all spit on your graves. Morons! - So Fake It’s Real: Global Warming is Reality TV for the Media Elite
Dear Comrade Cane,
Hat Trick! Three! Congrats.
Insurance companies also use global warming to charge higher premiums. Duh.
What better way to increase profits than to charge for contingencies that don’t happen?
Of course, if the contingency they charged more for was something like dying from AIDS- an actuarial probability- you’d call it profiteering.
May your children be allowed to pray at your graves.
That's it for this week,