Ya, about those glaciers melting....

[EvilYeti]

Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?

Twat.

You figure out that power to weight thing yet, you vacuous fraud?

A phony engi-nerd strikes me as beyond pathetic.

[EvilYeti]

Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?

You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.

None of whom are doing climate research.

You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.

None of whom are doing climate research.

OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?

You think you are not retarded.

Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.

Other than that the scientists happen to be doing their research on a planet where AGW is happening, they do not have a vested interest in AGW. You are simply too incompetent to comprehend what I'm writing.

Beyond that, no scientist has a vested *financial* incentive re: AGW. Most of them have salaried/tenured positions and get paid regardless of whether the earth is warming or cooling. Their job is study that warming and cooling, amongst other things, you know.

Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.

We all have a vested interest in AGW assuming its going to affect us within our lifetimes. I'm not sure this is the case so I have no idea whether its relevant or not.

For me personally I'm hedging my bets; plus I'm a conservationist at heart. But I can say for certain I don't have a vested interest in the AGW hypothesis. If its destroyed tomorrow it wouldn't cost me a dime (and I would be very relieved!).

So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?

None of whom are doing climate research.

The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.

Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.

Show me a climate scientist that has a vested financial interest in *favor* of AGW. I.e., that their grant money in dependent on them showing a certain result or their funding doesn't get renewed. Or that they would lose their job if AGW was invalidated.

I'll save you the trouble and let you know you will never, ever find any evidence of that. That is simply not how science funding works.

If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.

You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one. This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that there is some sort of incentive in 'promoting' AGW. The money simply isn't there.

[sparks]

Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?

Twat.

You figure out that power to weight thing yet, you vacuous fraud?

A phony engi-nerd strikes me as beyond pathetic.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P

[sparks]

Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?

You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.

None of whom are doing climate research.

You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.

None of whom are doing climate research.

OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?

You think you are not retarded.

Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.

Other than that the scientists happen to be doing their research on a planet where AGW is happening, they do not have a vested interest in AGW. You are simply too incompetent to comprehend what I'm writing.

Beyond that, no scientist has a vested *financial* incentive re: AGW. Most of them have salaried/tenured positions and get paid regardless of whether the earth is warming or cooling. Their job is study that warming and cooling, amongst other things, you know.

Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.

We all have a vested interest in AGW assuming its going to affect us within our lifetimes. I'm not sure this is the case so I have no idea whether its relevant or not.

For me personally I'm hedging my bets; plus I'm a conservationist at heart. But I can say for certain I don't have a vested interest in the AGW hypothesis. If its destroyed tomorrow it wouldn't cost me a dime (and I would be very relieved!).

So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?

None of whom are doing climate research.

The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.

Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.

Show me a climate scientist that has a vested financial interest in *favor* of AGW. I.e., that their grant money in dependent on them showing a certain result or their funding doesn't get renewed. Or that they would lose their job if AGW was invalidated.

I'll save you the trouble and let you know you will never, ever find any evidence of that. That is simply not how science funding works.

If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.

You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one. This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that there is some sort of incentive in 'promoting' AGW. The money simply isn't there.

All evasions noted. :lol:

[EvilYeti]

All evasions noted. :lol:

You are welcome to contribute.

Oh yeah, you can't. That whole phony engineer thing.

[Mentat]

Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?

Twat.

You figure out that power to weight thing yet, you vacuous fraud?

A phony engi-nerd strikes me as beyond pathetic.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P

I did some phoney engineering before. Unfortunately, the transmitter kept feeding back too much into the receiver, so you really couldn't hear the other person on the line that well.

[DrMatt]

Wait, you mean the glaciars aren't melting due to Zionist weaponry? :twisted:

[sparks]

No. It's Bruces fault. Something about the amount of fiber he's getting in his diet.............................. :)

[xouper]

The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.

OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you modify your claim from the way you originally worded it.

If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.

You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one.

BZZZT!! Sorry, but I wasn't comparing anything. Don't be putting words in my mouth like that. I was refuting your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. You have since modified your claim to say that no climate scientist has a vested financial interest in AGW. OK, fine, whatever. I don't believe you, but I already know you don't care what I think. Just as no one cares what you think.

[EvilYeti]

The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.

OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you modify your claim from the way you originally worded it.

Hell I'll even go way out into space and make the claim everyone on the planet has a vested interest in AGW.

What I'm confused about is why anyone would have a vested interest in *fraudulently* promoting AGW. Whether its fabricating data, fudging the models ... whatever. Especially if their career is on the line.

That's the real kicker. Every high-profile AGW 'proponent' has a vested interest in their own integrity above and beyond the environmental movement. They all have careers that earn them real money that would be damaged if they were caught cooking the books.

So, I guess my question for the peanut gallery is, why commit fraud when its both not necessary and the risks far outweigh the benefits?

BZZZT!! Sorry, but I wasn't comparing anything. Don't be putting words in my mouth like that. I was refuting your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. You have since modified your claim to say that no climate scientist has a vested financial interest in AGW. OK, fine, whatever. I don't believe you, but I already know you don't care what I think. Just as no one cares what you think.

You said 'I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies.' I'm just pointing out that their vested interest is pretty expensive if you want to put a dollar amount on it. They are the fox in the henhouse, not the communists (who went broke years ago).

[robinson]

What I'm confused about is why anyone would have a vested interest in *fraudulently* promoting AGW. Whether its fabricating data, fudging the models ... whatever. Especially if their career is on the line.

That's the real kicker.

Career on the line? Really? Do you think anyone's career is over because of the recent "mistake" about the "Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035", published by the IPCC?

Chapter 10 of the report's second section, claimed that glaciers in the Himalayas were receding faster than in any other part of the world, and that "if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 or perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at its current rate."

That was in 2005. Did a bunch of experts on glaciers question the report? Yes. Was it bullshit? Yes. Bad science, yes.

But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.

Did the really smart people who questioned the report and who pointed out how impossible it was to be true, did they get equal time? Of course not.

Were they called deniers and accused of having a vested interest for pointing out bad science? Of course, but again, not because of any scientist or anybody being fraudulent or anything, it was just a mistake. And just because other smart scientist pointed it out (almost five years ago) and asked them to provide the data for the statement, and they refused to produce it, and then attacked the people questioning them as deniers and crackpots, well, just another mistake you see.

No problem here, nothing to see, move along now.

[robinson]

It is most strange. I mean, nobody reporting on scientific stuff ever has done anything wrong. Why would they? Careers on the line you know.

It would be absurd. The very thought that a scientist could have anything but the highest morals, a dedication to truth, and never ever would do anything wrong, why, perish the thought.

[xouper]

So, I guess my question for the peanut gallery is, why commit fraud when its both not necessary and the risks far outweigh the benefits?

Why, indeed. But it has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Maybe you can ask these guys why they did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

Or maybe read the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_ ... of_Science

Or this paper:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... a904587276
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

So if you're going to claim misconduct has never happened in climate science, I don't think you can support that claim. In any case, I have not claimed there is fraud by any climatologist, but some of Phil Jone's behavior appears to be highly questionable and is at least an embarrassment.

You said 'I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies.' I'm just pointing out that their vested interest is pretty expensive if you want to put a dollar amount on it.

Fine. Just don't accuse me of saying things I didn't say while you're expressing your opinion.

[EvilYeti]

Career on the line? Really? Do you think anyone's career is over because of the recent "mistake" about the "Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035", published by the IPCC?

These were clearly speculative claims from a 'grey' source.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... claim.html

They simply shouldn't have been in an IPCC report, which is why they have been redacted.

That was in 2005. Did a bunch of experts on glaciers question the report? Yes. Was it bullshit? Yes. Bad science, yes.

Was it even science to begin with? No, it was clearly speculation and wasn't even published in a peer reviewed journal.

But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.

You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.

Did the really smart people who questioned the report and who pointed out how impossible it was to be true, did they get equal time? Of course not.

Uh, it was redacted you know. I'm not sure what else you want.

Were they called deniers and accused of having a vested interest for pointing out bad science? Of course, but again, not because of any scientist or anybody being fraudulent or anything, it was just a mistake. And just because other smart scientist pointed it out (almost five years ago) and asked them to provide the data for the statement, and they refused to produce it, and then attacked the people questioning them as deniers and crackpots, well, just another mistake you see.

Quite the active little fantasy mind you have there!

No problem here, nothing to see, move along now.

Paranoia is a form of mental illness, you know.

[xouper]

Earlier today in another thread Yeti asked this question:

Your opinion has no weight period. You are not a climatologist and your opinion on the topic has no relevance to anyone but you.

When I have I ever expressed an opinion on this topic, ...

And right on schedule comes an example of such an opinion:

But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.

You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.

Nice spin, by the way.

[EvilYeti]

Maybe you can ask these guys why they did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

In the case of Schon its fairly obvious his drive to succeed eclipsed his actual ability. He was also claiming to do some really groundbreaking new stuff, ergo the opportunity to commit fraud was higher than normal. Very few, if any, people could reproduce his work.

So if you're going to claim misconduct has never happened in climate science, I don't think you can support that claim. In any case, I have not claimed there is fraud by any climatologist, but some of Phil Jone's behavior appears to be highly questionable and is at least an embarrassment.

Aren't you a little old to just be figuring out you can't prove a negative?

If you, or anyone else, thinks there is fraud at play, present your evidence and shut these people down. Then you are a hero FTW.

You just have to prove it of course. No cheating!

[EvilYeti]

Earlier today in another thread Yeti asked this question:

Your opinion has no weight period. You are not a climatologist and your opinion on the topic has no relevance to anyone but you.

When I have I ever expressed an opinion on this topic, ...

And right on schedule comes an example of such an opinion:

But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.

You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.

Nice spin, by the way.

You need to have everything explained to you, don't you?

I don't have an opinion re: the AGW hypothesis. There is a scientific consensus on it. That is simply a fact. Most of what I present here is just a cut & paste of what the scientific community already knows.

I have lots of opinions on other things tangentially associated with the topic, like why the IGCC screwed up and how your dissatisfaction with your personal life cause you to lash out at those that are more successful than you; but that much should be obvious.

[xouper]

So, I guess my question for the peanut gallery is, why commit fraud when its both not necessary and the risks far outweigh the benefits?

Maybe you can ask these guys why they did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

In the case of Schon its fairly obvious his drive to succeed eclipsed his actual ability. He was also claiming to do some really groundbreaking new stuff, ergo the opportunity to commit fraud was higher than normal. Very few, if any, people could reproduce his work.

See, you answered your own question. Well done.

Aren't you a little old to just be figuring out you can't prove a negative?

I was just pointing out the obvious, in case you were about to claim there is no misconduct in climate science.

[xouper]

I don't have an opinion re: the AGW hypothesis.

:lmao: Riiigghhtt.

I suppose you also have a bridge you want to sell me.

[xouper]

Eat some more crow, Yeti:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 999975.ece

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. . . .

[Rob Lister]

And just because it is relevant...

“The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/n ... reference/

[Grammatron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8479795.stm

The chairman of the UN's climate science body said he would not resign in the wake of a row about a mistake on glaciers that appeared in a key report.
Rajendra Pachauri told BBC News: "I am not going to stand down, I am going to stand up."

[EvilYeti]

I don't have an opinion re: the AGW hypothesis.

:lmao: Riiigghhtt.

I suppose you also have a bridge you want to sell me.

I don't have an opinion on evolution either. It, like AGW, is a simple truth of the natural world and I accept it as such.

Ill-informed ignoramuses like yourself see everything as differing opinions as you are too incompetent to understand otherwise.

[EvilYeti]

Eat some more crow, Yeti:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 999975.ece

The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. . . .

In your dreams, pin head.

Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization. They do no research in and of themselves.

The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.

Exactly. No surprise Xouper the nobody doesn't know the difference between public policy and science grants.

Eat some more shit, Xouper. Your head must be getting pretty full by now...

[xouper]

Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.

The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.

But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.

[EvilYeti]

Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.

The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.

But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.

It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; which is unlikely and probably impossible to prove even if true. Beyond that he didn't change the wording of the original report so obviously the provider of the grant monies didn't take issue with the fact that it was speculative in nature. It was, after all, a public policy, not a science grant.

Tim Lambert @Deltoid blogged about this extensively:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01 ... roport.php

My take on the IPCC (and this is clearly my personal opinion), is that nothing they do will ever accomplish anything as the energy lobby is simply way too powerful. The non-event of the Copenhagen summit bears this out.

This absolutely nothing to do with the reality of AGW, of course.

[xouper]

Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.

The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.

But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.

It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; ...

Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.

[EvilYeti]

Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.

The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.

But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.

It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; ...

Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.

You obviously have no idea how grants work.

No surprise, as you have not and will never get one. More jealousy from the over-the-hill hater.

[xouper]

Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.

You obviously have no idea how grants work.

No surprise, as you have not and will never get one. More jealousy from the over-the-hill hater.

Grow up.

Anyone who keeps grant money even after it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the grant money was gotten on false pretenses, is a thief. But I am not surprised that you -- a sycophant for AGW -- defend him even in his misdeeds.

[EvilYeti]

Grow up.

Anyone who keeps grant money even after it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the grant money was gotten on false pretenses, is a thief. But I am not surprised that you -- a sycophant for AGW -- defend him even in his misdeeds.

I'm not defending it. It clearly was a mistake, it was redacted, what more do you want? In doesn't change the scientific consensus on AGW one iota, including the consensus that they Himalayan glaciers probably won't melt by 2035.

The comments in the draft report even suggest it needed a citation; so this is clearly a better example of sloppy editing than any malfeasance. In fact, it was scientists that caught the error, not the deniers.

Not much of a conspiracy, is it?

Re: in the case of the grant mentioned, its from the Carnegie corporation and therefore any claims of abusing the public trust are moot as its a private company.

Read all about it here: http://carnegie.org/grants/grants-database/ and feel free to contact the company and ask if they feel they have been victimized. I suspect I already know what their response will be, but why don't you go ahead and find out for yourself?

Btw, I hope you realize that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. You are going to have to flip alot of burgers to pay off your useless degree, assuming you ever finish it.

[xouper]

It clearly was a mistake, it was redacted, what more do you want?

Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.

Btw, I hope you realize that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. You are going to have to flip alot of burgers to pay off your useless degree, assuming you ever finish it.

Not even close. Why do you do this to yourself, make yourself look uninformed, childish, and petty?

[EvilYeti]

Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.

Except it was my 'AGW' pals that caught the mistake in the first place and had it fixed. Not you and your retard buddies.

Did McKitirick or any of his 'peers' catch his errors? No, it was good ole' Tim @Deltoid, whom is actually a computer scientist by career.

Oops. So much for incompetent amateurs and their reviews, eh? Our amateurs are competent, at least!

That you cannot see the difference between a mistake by an editor and one by a PI that results in bogus results simply demonstrates how far removed you are from anything even approaching actual legitimate academic work.

Not even close. Why do you do this to yourself, make yourself look uninformed, childish, and petty?

Why do you persist in attacking those that are demonstrably more accomplished than you *ever* will be?

By the way, have you contacted the Carnegie Corporation and asked them for their opinion on 'GlacierGate'? Especially given that their grant was a half a million dollars?

If not, why not? You obviously feel a crime was committed. Isn't it your civic duty to see that justice is done?

[xouper]

Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.

Except it was my 'AGW' pals that caught the mistake in the first place and had it fixed. Not you and your retard buddies.

Did McKitirick or any of his 'peers' catch his errors? No, it was good ole' Tim @Deltoid, whom is actually a computer scientist by career.

Oops. So much for incompetent amateurs and their reviews, eh? Our amateurs are competent, at least!

Jeebus, you can't even get simple facts right. Tim at Deltoid did NOT discover the error. Tim simply reported on what others had already found.

But more importantly, your logic is flawed. It is irrelevant who finds the mistake. A mistake is a mistake regardless who finds it. It is not reasonable to excuse a mistake just because of who found it. Nor is it reasonable to exclude a mistake just because it wasn't McKitrick who found it.

In any case, McKitrick did find mistakes in Hansen's data, but you do not dismiss Hansen's work because of that. But when someone finds a mistake in McKitrick's data, you dismiss ALL of McKitrick's work.

Your hypocrisy is clear, Yeti. You pounce on mistakes by AGW critics but defend mistakes by AGW zealots like Pachauri.

[robinson]

Hmmm

[robinson]

A picture is worth a thousand words....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL

Except when it leaves out the words about the picture.

"For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost. "

"Muir Glacier has undergone very rapid, well-documented retreat since its Little Ice Age maximum position at the mouth of Glacier Bay around 1780."

So before the 1941 photo, it had already retreated like over 15 miles. Showing only the retreat in the two photos from 1941 to 2004, with out mentioning that this was a constant retreat that had been going on, is deception.

Which is why pictures alone don't always tell the whole story.

Revisiting my first entries into the total shitshow that is discussing anything about climate.

[robinson]

In this case it's more of a "this will make it easy to find later" than any faint hope of a civilized discussion about any of it.