If it gets hot, just crank up the ac. Who cares?

captkirk said:

---

Earlier this week, depending on where you live, you may have noticed a bit of a heat wave during your 4th of July celebrations. But as Bege pointed out on Thursday, simply noting that it was a hot day in July wasn't good enough for the climate cult members in the legacy media. They dredged up "experts" to declare that Tuesday and Wednesday were the "hottest days on record" if not the "hottest days ever." It was such a peculiar story that others began digging into the details to see if there was any merit to the idea or if it was all malarkey. At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper....

Quote:

---

One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago. Calculated estimates of current temperatures can't be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago.

A more likely alternative to the 62.6-degree estimate is something around 57.5 degrees. The latter is an average of actual surface temperature measurements taken around the world and processed on a minute-by-minute basis by a website called temperature.global. The numbers have been steady this year, with no spike in July.

Moreover, the notion of "average global temperature" is meaningless. Average global temperature is a concept invented by and for the global-warming hypothesis. It is more a political concept than a scientific one. The Earth and its atmosphere is large and diverse, and no place is meaningfully average.

---

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/07/08/about-those-hottest-days-ever-n563208

---

The last sentence reminds me of a friend of mine who like to pony out the problem with using averages:
It doesn't always actually describe anything. For example, the average person on earth has one restocked and one boob! His words have never been more true thank the last few years!

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

10thYrSr said:

---

Our hubris is so great that we think we can affect a system macroscopically that has endured for billions of years. If we have the power to influence climate why haven't we made deserts green? Why are we allowing people to live in unbearable heat with energy consuming air conditioning? If we have the power to modify a planet, everything should be temperate..

---

This. How vain can you be to think that humans, who aren't even fleas on the back of the earth can have any affect on what it has been doing for billions of years.

Well, specifically the headlines I saw were "hottest day ever RECORDED."

Obviously temperatures from thousands of years ago aren't being recorded.

Jordan Peterson has excellent interviews with a few climate scientists and experts. The method of determining the "global" temperature is discussed and also how temperatures vary by region. Interestingly, one expert who has been studying the atmosphere since the 70s noted that the equator and poles have different sensitivities to green house effects. The global average temperature is a combination of temperature data from thousands of monitors around the globe, but if you look at the actual input data, the regional variance make the global mean a meaningless value. Recent trends are well within the noise and ignore localized sensitivities to different atmospheric phenomena.

Up here in Oklahoma, we are having a really mild summer so far with a ton of rain. It's awesome!

TXAG 05 said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Our hubris is so great that we think we can affect a system macroscopically that has endured for billions of years. If we have the power to influence climate why haven't we made deserts green? Why are we allowing people to live in unbearable heat with energy consuming air conditioning? If we have the power to modify a planet, everything should be temperate..

---

This. How vain can you be to think that humans, who aren't even fleas on the back of the earth can have any affect on what it has been doing for billions of years.

---

So you're ok with this then?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/06/30/congressionally-mandated-report-on-solar-radiation-modification/

Nostradamus was more accurate than climate "science" foretelling the future. Climate "science" on the same level of science as palm reading.

redline248 said:

---

I love how they hang their hats on the change in yearly temps. Exactly how accurate are all those collections from 1900?

---

Honestly probably worse now with all the concrete jungles being hot, vs more temps taken more rurally, bs none the less

Had to listen to almost a week of this propaganda on KBTX. Shel loves him some global warming propaganda.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

---

Perhaps you missed this

Quote:

---

At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper....

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

10thYrSr said:

---

Our hubris is so great that we think we can affect a system macroscopically that has endured for billions of years. If we have the power to influence climate why haven't we made deserts green? Why are we allowing people to live in unbearable heat with energy consuming air conditioning? If we have the power to modify a planet, everything should be temperate..

---

This. How vain can you be to think that humans, who aren't even fleas on the back of the earth can have any affect on what it has been doing for billions of years.

---

Well if we have the power to change genders...

captkirk said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

---

Perhaps you missed this

Quote:

---

At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper....

---

---

What about it? Steven Milloy is a lawyer, lobbyist, author and former Fox News contributor. This is just another non-scientific politically based article like Beege's. Climate analysis is scientific not political.

Logos Stick said:

---

It was a lot hotter during Roman times and humans became extinct.

---

At one time there were alligators living near the artic circle, granted that was 56 million years ago.. But I am sure that was the fault of the Pre-pre-pre-pre-human activities.

TexAgs91 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

---

Perhaps you missed this

Quote:

---

At the Wall Street Journal, Steve Milloy of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute dug even deeper....

---

---

What about it? Steven Milloy is a lawyer, lobbyist, author and former Fox News contributor. This is just another non-scientific politically based article like Beege's. Climate analysis is scientific not political.

---

Lawyer or not, what is false about these statements?

Quote:

---

Average global temperature also changes on seasonal basis: Temperatures are higher globally during the Northern Hemisphere's summer because of more sunlight-trapping land. In this case, the Climate Reanalyzer's estimated temperatures in early July were skewed by a heat wave in the Antarctic, where areas may have warmed some Antarctic temperatures by as much as 43 degrees. This is likely the explanation for the difference between the 62.6-degree and 57.5-degree estimates.
Another problem is that our temperature data are imprecise. It has been estimated that 96% of U.S. temperature stations produce corrupted data. About 92% of them reportedly have a margin of error of a full degree Celsius, or nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit. The lack of precision of reported temperatures, whether estimated or measured, is not reassuring.
Temperature stations also tend to be limited to populated areas. Much of the Earth's surface isn't measured at all. Although the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration likes to present global temperatures starting in 1880, regular temperature collection in places such as the north and south poles began much later.

---

Can those things cast doubts on the "hottest day ever" claims from a scientific basis? Is there reason for the climate change industry to lie? I think so on both counts.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

---

I can't speak to ice core proxies, but I do recall that the warmers dropped tree ring proxies from comparison because the proxy temps began to diverge significantly from real temps measured by modern means.

Thus, tree ring proxies cannot be trusted at all.

How accurately do proxy temps using ice cores represent actual temps?

beanbean said:

---

Up here in Oklahoma, we are having a really mild summer so far with a ton of rain. It's awesome!

---

Pass it back to Texas please!

How in the world would these "scientist" get the tax payer money to "research" this if their findings weren't alarming, catastrophic, urgent, controllable, etc ?

You have to sell the grift. Too much money in this scam for it to just go the way of COVID.

The same type of people wanted COVID to stay a thing forever. Tons of money made but people saw through it in short order preventing it from getting on the yearly congressional budget like "climate change"

Eh, by this time last year we had between 30 and 40 days straight of 100+ degree weather in Boise. Not a single day with highs below 100 the entirety of June in July. So far this year in June and July, the same stretch, we've had a total of 1. And that's today. So…

I'm not complaining. This summer has been pretty perfect. Didn't even turn my AC on until 1-2 weeks ago. Screw global warming idiots. This summer is as good as you're gonna get in the high desert.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3386448/replies/65178148#65178148

Logos Stick said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Beege Welborn's response to the ridiculous political narrative about the hottest day ever has a problem. It's not a scientific response. Beege Welborn's linkedin bio says "Experienced blogger, and freelance writer with a demonstrated history of working in the public relations, and communications industry.". She can write about it, but it is no more credible than the BS she's countering.

That's probably why she's completely discounting ice core readings. If she wants to say why they are invalid from a scientific standpoint, great. We could use some science in a discussion about science. But she doesn't even bring up the number 1 method of determining temperatures from pre-satellite times, instead giving us strawman nonsense.

And yes, of course there is an average global temperature. You can argue that we aren't able to accurately calculate it because of how we're measuring it, but there is an average global temperature.

Besides.. it no longer matters. We're beyond the 5 year deadline given to us by the other scientist: Greta Thunberg. We're all going to die off and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is awesome because we can hold up that declaration in anyone's face like when Christopher Wray says he can't discuss ongoing investigations. The entire subject is now moot.

---

I can't speak to ice core proxies, but I do recall that the warmers dropped tree ring proxies from comparison because the proxy temps began to diverge significantly from real temps measured by modern means.

Thus, tree ring proxies cannot be trusted at all.

How accurately do proxy temps using ice cores represent actual temps?

---

I'm not an expert on that so unlike a blogger I won't speculate
But I do know they calibrate the recent ice core readings they have to match modern methods. I just thought it was weird how both 'experts' cited in this thread didn't mention ice core readings at all when for better or worse, that is what they use to get prehistoric temperature data.

Wait, am I reading that right, a woman named Beege?

https://instagr.am/p/CsLxrw6ttaA

Absolutely destroys their entire argument. Wild to watch.

It's possible both that human activity has increased c02 and warmed the climate a bit AND that that is a net benefit to mankind.