No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.

Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

--
"Then you say GNU/Linux is an OS, but ceases to be once
distributed..." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can
quote it lying)

On 9/30/2019 7:58 AM, chrisv wrote:
Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

Yeah, your opinion is REAL science. Perhaps if you learned a little
actual science...Oh wait, you are a lib so that is impossible.

snicker

On 9/30/19 2:26 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:43:03 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/29/19 9:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 21:38:45 -0400, Paul
wrote:

---- vast snip ---

I'm not going to enter into a long discussion which is unsuited to a
news group. I will merely say:

.... but I am going to show what an idiot snit is and that he he knows
sufficient about climate science to enable him to look up support from
his favourite list of quotes.

Yet you keep bragging about knowing less than most kids.

[1] everyone agrees that CO2 on its own will not provide a greenhouse
effect sufficient to explain the warming over the last 60 years.

While there are other factors, CO2 is a key one.

The
current theory requires a feedback effect through an increase in water
vapour. There is no agreement as to the magnitude of the Charney
sensitivity (temperature rise caused by a doubling of CO2) which is
commonly given values between 1.2C and 3.8C, with more extreme values
suggested by some. The question arises, is the Charney effect real and
does the theory of Greenhouse warming work as proposed.

[2] The theory predicts a hot spot in the troposphere which has not
been found to date. Going straight to the horses mouth, you can read
about it at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05...pical-hotspot/

[3] With one conspicuous exception (the Russian) all the climate
computer models overstate the degree of warming, whether surface or
tropospheric. The theory is clearly wrong.r

Clearing up these points would be a good start.


As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand pick them.

What I am noting is YOU are looking to those 70 or so, and really a
subset of them (you have not mentioned them all) to "back" your denial.


I believe you really do.

That is because you fail to understand simple concepts.

What then do you say about the 500 scientists
who have just sent a letter to the UN declaring "there is no climate
emergency"?

Again you show a lack of understanding. You do that repeatedly.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...mit-no-emerge/
-----
.... 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders ...
-----

You present them as just scientists.

And how was it received:
----
The declaration was dismissed by Penn State climatologist Michael E.
Mann, who called it “craven and stupid,� as well as the left-of-center
[U.K.] Guardian, which said the document “repeats well-worn and
long-debunked talking points on climate change that are contradicted by
scientific institutions and academies around the world.�
-----

Yeah, really powerful stuff!

And below you run to one of the 70. Again.

Don't you ever wonder why you feel the need to focus on the 70 and not
the tens of thousands?

Do you not see your own bias in doing so?

Keep in mind: you point ONLY to folks who have been complete debunked.
In other words: you know less than most children.

If you are to be believed, 430 of those scientists must
still believe what you call as science.

But you are even silliier than that, if you go back to my link above
and click on "About Dr. Roy Spencer" you will read:

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research
Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he
was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space
Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s
Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global
temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work
with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua
satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on
the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S.
government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked
by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even
Exxon-Mobil."

I gave you a hint when I sent you "straight to the horses mouth". In
the quote immediately above you will see

"Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team
leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on
NASA’s Aqua satellite.r. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as
the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite."

He is in charge of getting the satellite data and if he says
"satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in
recent decades" then satellites have failed to show evidence of a
hotspot forming in recent decades. You will notice that in his next
paragraph he goes on to discuss recent work which might explain that.
He is far from being biased on the subject.

That is you hand picking.

**** yes. I go straight to the specialist on the subject rather than
your favourite lead bigot.

And he has been thoroughly debunked:

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

That's debunking? You are an idiot.

But even if he had not been, why focus on 70 scientists out of tens of
thousands?

Don't ask me. It was you who cited Wikipedia.

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no point
in continuing this discussion with you.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 9/29/19 1:34 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 1:30 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 12:17 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 12:13 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 11:47 AM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 11:43 a.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 11:41 AM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 11:37 a.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 1:20 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:21:46 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 7:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
Â*Â*Â* Eric Stevens
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* -----
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Whether in science or scholarship, you make a claim, its
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* up to you to prove it. There is plenty of data out there
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* and as far as I know none of it says what you are saying.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* If you are aware of something to support your claim I
will
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* be very interested to learn of it.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* -----

Â*Â*Â* Snit:
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* -----
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* It is up to the scientists to back their claims. Sure.
But
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* be aware the science is not in ANY way weakened by your
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ignorance and denial.

Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* But I will play your game: what claim are you seeing
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* (point to it, say at http://climate.nasa.gov) that you
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* want backed?
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* -----

And you ran... unable to find a single claim you think is
not well
backed. So we have reached agreement: in general the claims
about the
climate coming from the scientific community, and NASA
specifically, are
well supported... at least well enough you cannot find a
single claim
that is NOT well supported.

Below you try to turn this into being about me. Not biting.

That remark shows you have not been looking very hard or for
very
long. For many years NASA has been trumpeting the 94%~97% claim
although I now see it is buried in the footnotes to their Global
Climate Change section. You see what I discovered when I started
digging into what NASA regards as justification at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l8jf6vz55o...97%25.pdf?dl=0

The 97% is often misquoted. It is about the percent of papers
and even
that for the past. The current percent is higher -- but again,
about
papers. When scientists are polled the number is close to
that, when you
include people in relevant fields. And higher when you only
include
leaders in the fields (at least from what I recall).

https://skepticalscience.com/97-perc...t-al-2013.html


Someone hasn't read the Cook paper. If they had they would have
noticed in the abstract:

Â*Â* "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on
AGW, 32.6%
Â*Â*Â* endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain
about the
Â*Â*Â* cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a
position on
Â*Â*Â* AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are
Â*Â*Â* causing global warming."

OK. 97.1%, not just 97%.

And below you try to twist the data, pretending every paper is
required to take a stand one way or the other, failing to
understand why most would not (and, really, should not).

So that's 97.1% of 32.6% = 31.65%. As far as I know the Skeptical
Science results have not been published anywhere (except on
their own
site) so we know even less about the methodology than Cook
disclosed
in his paper.

You don't seem to have read the link I gave you which included
four
adverse comments on a varietty of aspects of the Cook paper. One
critic in particular wrote:

Â*Â* "Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific
Validity, and
Â*Â*Â* Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply
Â*Â*Â* fraudulentâ€�, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no
action to
Â*Â*Â* challenge the claim. This, as much as anything else, shows
just
Â*Â*Â* what a con trick the whole business was. How many
scientists, after
Â*Â*Â* all, would accept being called fraudulent without taking
action?"

Quite.

So show other data. But you have none. And remember, YOU brought
up the 97% and I noted it was often misquoted. If you want to
know the strength of the consensus there are sources you can
look at. Back to NASA, for example:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../4/048002/meta


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009EO030002


https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...S-D-13-00091.1

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta


https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You do realize that YOU can do research and actually try to
learn by yourself and not be dependent on me, right? After all
it is not my job to help you get to the level of understanding
of the common grade school child (they are generally well aware
of man-made global climate change and how it is a strong risk
and well supported, where you are not... hence they are more
knowledgeable about the topic than you are).

You will see this text again. I will not be side tracked by
insults and
attacks and attempts to change the topic. Then you will
whine I keep
repeating myself. See: you are not the first one I have seen
trolling
Usenet. Nor the last.

Well, do what I do. Go to the primary sources and see what
they are
and what is being said about them. Then make up your mind. Don't
continue to do what you are presently doing by getting your
opinions
at second hand.

As I have noted, and you show no understanding of, is that
NASA shows
their sources. And if you look at primary sources (the papers)
you get
97% agreement. As you have been shown. And that was for the
past -- the
strength of the evidence has lead to even stronger consensus now.

And lacking a reasoned response you offer insults. Not biting.

I don't know what you have been smoking but you seem to have
swallowed
a lie.

But you deny science and think you are special. So be it.
Remember:
children understand the situation better than you do.

Haw!

It is simply a fact that most children understand that man-made
global climate change is very well backed where you claim to not
understand this. You claim your knowledge is less than that of
most children. I am not noting this to insult you, but to make
it clear to you where your starting point is. You simply have
too much to learn for ANYONE to be able to really get you
"caught up" on line. Take some classes. Learn on your own. Do
some research. Read the NASA site and others. Seriously, you
seem intelligent enough TO learn and have a basic understanding.

What I will not do is pretend your rejection of science is in
any way equal to an acceptance of science. The science is not
weakened in any way by your ignorance or rejection of it. Do you
understand that?


no

I know.

well tell him then

Too much to tell!

so what are you trying to do

Get him started. Or just get amused.

is he here

Not fully.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 9/29/19 1:34 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 1:29 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 12:18 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 12:13 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 11:48 AM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 11:44 a.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 11:32 AM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-29 11:27 a.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/29/19 1:33 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:16:55 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 7:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/27/19 9:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 28 Sep 2019 01:04:34 GMT, vallor
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 12:25:53 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 07:13:23 -0500, chrisv

wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

chrisv wrote:

Chris wrote:

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of
humans will have
their way of life changed forever, however.

They always do.

Not at this current rapid timescale.

A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing
assholes always
seem to "forget".

Please give me data.

There are REAMS of "data", out there.Â* Links to the
nasa site, for
example, have already been provided.Â* Only a willfully
ignorant a$$hole
would assert that we need to prove this case in a
fscking newsgroup.

Whether in science or scholarship, you make a claim,
its up to you to
prove it.

Not if it's common knowledge.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Toodles.

There is a difference between common knowledge and common
error.
Evidence is required to determine what a particular
belief may be.


Looking at the claims he

http://climate.nasa.gov

What ones do you think are not well supported? If you pick
one or two I
will do what I can to find the evidence for you.

You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find
questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them.
Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2.

Sure. And they give the source.

Actually they say it is based on" ... the comparison of etc
etc". As
you say "Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010;
Vostok
ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record".

Surely they give names but nowhere do they explain how they
merged the
data and I assume you have not read the papers to find out.

You pretend using data from multiple sources is bad. They do go
into more detail:

-----
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the
last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial
advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age
about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern
climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate
changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit
that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because
most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent
probability) to be the result of human activity since the
mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented
over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have
enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many
different types of information about our planet and its climate
on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years,
reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was
demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect
the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the
scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no
question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause
the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical
mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to
changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be
found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of
sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence
reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times
faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Global Temperature Rise

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62
degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th
century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and
other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the
warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest
years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the
warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up
the year — from January through September, with the exception of
June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. 5
-----

And on and on. If you would actually read the page and not just
ignore the evidence you ask for you might gain an understanding
to the level of most kids. Maybe higher. So far you have failed
at that.

In any case, you have omitted to answer my question about "The
straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data.
The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind. Instrument data
should
never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can you tell me why?"

Because it upsets you to have multiple sources of data and you
cannot understand the value of having more knowledge, no matter
how well supported it is.

I assume you can't answer they question. The ansswer is that the
instrument data is derived from daily measurement which can track
fluctuations of CO2 as frequently as once per day. The proxy
measurements are almost certainly derived from ice cores which by
there very nature can only display fluctuations with a period of a
century or more. In other words, CO2 levels could have spiked
up or
down without leaving any evidence in the proxy data.

There is no evidence of any such past spike, nor any mechanism
known which could have caused such a spike, esp. as rapid as we
have seen in modern times.

-----
Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok
ice core
data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record
-----

Below you make a bunch of unsupported claims. Not biting.

No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I
will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some
kind.
Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like
this. can
you tell me why?

Then try looking for more data, such as
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/icecore.png

That shows less data. But OK.

whee they at least
indicate the nature of the data source to let knowqledgeable
evaluate
it for themselves. As A side issue, do you notice the dip in
CO2 from
about 1550 to 1800? One guess which caused that.

But you have no counter... and nothing you can even point to
where you
question it. Fair enough.

The evidence is solid enough where not even you -- someone
who seeks to
deny the evidence -- can find significant flaw with it. Good
to know.




i've used a past spike

No, it was a paste spike.

why would i spike the glue

To deal with whats-his-name.

fk him he's muslage

What? Seems just like a modpodge of words to me.

what more do you need

Chickens. Hundreds of them.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:33:28 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 2:26 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:43:03 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/29/19 9:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 21:38:45 -0400, Paul
wrote:

---- vast snip ---

I'm not going to enter into a long discussion which is unsuited to a
news group. I will merely say:

.... but I am going to show what an idiot snit is and that he he knows
sufficient about climate science to enable him to look up support from
his favourite list of quotes.

Yet you keep bragging about knowing less than most kids.

[1] everyone agrees that CO2 on its own will not provide a greenhouse
effect sufficient to explain the warming over the last 60 years.

While there are other factors, CO2 is a key one.

The
current theory requires a feedback effect through an increase in water
vapour. There is no agreement as to the magnitude of the Charney
sensitivity (temperature rise caused by a doubling of CO2) which is
commonly given values between 1.2C and 3.8C, with more extreme values
suggested by some. The question arises, is the Charney effect real and
does the theory of Greenhouse warming work as proposed.

[2] The theory predicts a hot spot in the troposphere which has not
been found to date. Going straight to the horses mouth, you can read
about it at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/05...pical-hotspot/

[3] With one conspicuous exception (the Russian) all the climate
computer models overstate the degree of warming, whether surface or
tropospheric. The theory is clearly wrong.r

Clearing up these points would be a good start.


As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it. You obviously
let Wikipedia do your thinking for you and have no idea of who many of
those scientists are.

What I am noting is YOU are looking to those 70 or so, and really a
subset of them (you have not mentioned them all) to "back" your denial.


I believe you really do.

That is because you fail to understand simple concepts.

What then do you say about the 500 scientists
who have just sent a letter to the UN declaring "there is no climate
emergency"?

Again you show a lack of understanding. You do that repeatedly.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...mit-no-emerge/
-----
... 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders ...
-----

So what. Have you checked up on those 70 people in the Wikipedi list?

You present them as just scientists.

And how was it received:
----
The declaration was dismissed by Penn State climatologist Michael E.
Mann, who called it “craven and stupid,” as well as the left-of-center
[U.K.] Guardian, which said the document “repeats well-worn and
long-debunked talking points on climate change that are contradicted by
scientific institutions and academies around the world.”
-----

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know about
you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0

Yeah, really powerful stuff!

And below you run to one of the 70. Again.

Don't you ever wonder why you feel the need to focus on the 70 and not
the tens of thousands?

Do you not see your own bias in doing so?

Keep in mind: you point ONLY to folks who have been complete debunked.
In other words: you know less than most children.

If you are to be believed, 430 of those scientists must
still believe what you call as science.

But you are even silliier than that, if you go back to my link above
and click on "About Dr. Roy Spencer" you will read:

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research
Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he
was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space
Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s
Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global
temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work
with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the
Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua
satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on
the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S.
government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked
by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even
Exxon-Mobil."

I gave you a hint when I sent you "straight to the horses mouth". In
the quote immediately above you will see

"Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team
leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on
NASA’s Aqua satellite.r. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as
the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite."

He is in charge of getting the satellite data and if he says
"satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in
recent decades" then satellites have failed to show evidence of a
hotspot forming in recent decades. You will notice that in his next
paragraph he goes on to discuss recent work which might explain that.
He is far from being biased on the subject.

That is you hand picking.

**** yes. I go straight to the specialist on the subject rather than
your favourite lead bigot.

And he has been thoroughly debunked:

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

That's debunking? You are an idiot.

But even if he had not been, why focus on 70 scientists out of tens of
thousands?

Don't ask me. It was you who cited Wikipedia.

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 06:58:29 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Chris wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.

These right-wingers know *so* much more about this, than NASA's
scientists, you know.

Argument from authority. That makes you a scholar.

Oh wait, that's right. They must lie their asses off, lest they lose
their jobs. (rolling eyes)

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 9/30/19 4:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
....
As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it.

Who cares? The point is you and others who deny science run to those
same fewer than 70 scientists, most of whom are widely regarded as
kooks, to "support" your anti-science views... and you ignore the tens
of thousands of scientists who actually have looked at the evidence,
have not had their views and research heavily debunked, and at least
largely accept the consensus.

But you change the topic to your knowledge of the list of kooks you and
your anti-science crowd go to. So what? Do you think you being ignorant
of yet another thing is somehow a point in your favor?

And below you go off into insults and accusations. Not biting. And then
you reference, get this, your own link saying you do not buy into the
science. I agree: you reject the science. Again, so what? Do you want a
cookie for being ignorant?

....

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know
about you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0

Bottom line: you have NOTHING but a focus on your own unsupported claims
tied to hand picking from a list of fewer than 70 scientists who reject
the general consensus.

Oh, and from that list you have now added looking at McKitrick to back
your denial. He is an economist, not even a relevant scientist, and has
been debunked.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ross-mckitrick
-----
Ross McKitrick, along with Stephen McIntyre both attacked the math and
modeling of the 'Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Hockey Stick. Consequently, the
MBH 1999 became probably the most peer reviewed science paper in history.

The end results were that the adjustments McIntyre and McKitrick
suggested were statistically insignificant and did not degrade the
meaning of the MBH 1999 paper.
-----

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
-----
McKitrick coauthored one of the cornerstones of denialism with Steve
McIntyre (abbreviated as "M&M"). In this, they accused Mann et al., the
authors of the original "hockey stick" paper, of "collation errors,
unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete
data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal
components, and other quality control defects."[3] A bit harsh — Mann et
al. acknowledged errors and published a correction, and the overall
hockey stick was unchanged. Other authors have confirmed the basic
accuracy of the hockey stick.
-----

Etc. He found some errors (good, that is how science works) and the
research was updated and became the most peer reviewed study in
history... and was found to be largely accurate.

And then you think YOU can denounce it WITHOUT EVIDENCE even though it
has been so heavily reviewed by peers.

A child would not be likely to work at being as ignorant as you seek to be.

....

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

I am not surprised to see you run away... you have been bragging about
your ignorance and you want a cookie or something. I am not going to
give you one.





--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2019-09-30 6:01 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 4:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming


Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand
pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it.

Who cares? The point is you and others who deny science run to those
same fewer than 70 scientists, most of whom are widely regarded as
kooks, to "support" your anti-science views... and you ignore the tens
of thousands of scientists who actually have looked at the evidence,
have not had their views and research heavily debunked, and at least
largely accept the consensus.

But you change the topic to your knowledge of the list of kooks you and
your anti-science crowd go to. So what? Do you think you being ignorant
of yet another thing is somehow a point in your favor?

And below you go off into insults and accusations. Not biting. And then
you reference, get this, your own link saying you do not buy into the
science. I agree: you reject the science. Again, so what? Do you want a
cookie for being ignorant?

...

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know
about you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0


Bottom line: you have NOTHING but a focus on your own unsupported claims
tied to hand picking from a list of fewer than 70 scientists who reject
the general consensus.

Oh, and from that list you have now added looking at McKitrick to back
your denial. He is an economist, not even a relevant scientist, and has
been debunked.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ross-mckitrick

-----
Ross McKitrick, along with Stephen McIntyre both attacked the math and
modeling of the 'Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Hockey Stick. Consequently, the
MBH 1999 became probably the most peer reviewed science paper in history.

The end results were that the adjustments McIntyre and McKitrick
suggested were statistically insignificant and did not degrade the
meaning of the MBH 1999 paper.
-----

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
-----
McKitrick coauthored one of the cornerstones of denialism with Steve
McIntyre (abbreviated as "M&M"). In this, they accused Mann et al., the
authors of the original "hockey stick" paper, of "collation errors,
unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete
data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal
components, and other quality control defects."[3] A bit harsh — Mann et
al. acknowledged errors and published a correction, and the overall
hockey stick was unchanged. Other authors have confirmed the basic
accuracy of the hockey stick.
-----

Etc. He found some errors (good, that is how science works) and the
research was updated and became the most peer reviewed study in
history... and was found to be largely accurate.

And then you think YOU can denounce it WITHOUT EVIDENCE even though it
has been so heavily reviewed by peers.

A child would not be likely to work at being as ignorant as you seek to be.

...

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

I am not surprised to see you run away... you have been bragging about
your ignorance and you want a cookie or something. I am not going to
give you one.





the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

On 9/30/19 6:06 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-30 6:01 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 4:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming


Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand
pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it.

Who cares? The point is you and others who deny science run to those
same fewer than 70 scientists, most of whom are widely regarded as
kooks, to "support" your anti-science views... and you ignore the tens
of thousands of scientists who actually have looked at the evidence,
have not had their views and research heavily debunked, and at least
largely accept the consensus.

But you change the topic to your knowledge of the list of kooks you
and your anti-science crowd go to. So what? Do you think you being
ignorant of yet another thing is somehow a point in your favor?

And below you go off into insults and accusations. Not biting. And
then you reference, get this, your own link saying you do not buy into
the science. I agree: you reject the science. Again, so what? Do you
want a cookie for being ignorant?

...

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know
about you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read
Â*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0


Bottom line: you have NOTHING but a focus on your own unsupported
claims tied to hand picking from a list of fewer than 70 scientists
who reject the general consensus.

Oh, and from that list you have now added looking at McKitrick to back
your denial. He is an economist, not even a relevant scientist, and
has been debunked.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ross-mckitrick

-----
Ross McKitrick, along with Stephen McIntyre both attacked the math and
modeling of the 'Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Hockey Stick. Consequently,
the MBH 1999 became probably the most peer reviewed science paper in
history.

The end results were that the adjustments McIntyre and McKitrick
suggested were statistically insignificant and did not degrade the
meaning of the MBH 1999 paper.
-----

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
-----
McKitrick coauthored one of the cornerstones of denialism with Steve
McIntyre (abbreviated as "M&M"). In this, they accused Mann et al.,
the authors of the original "hockey stick" paper, of "collation
errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data,
obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of
principal components, and other quality control defects."[3] A bit
harsh — Mann et al. acknowledged errors and published a correction,
and the overall hockey stick was unchanged. Other authors have
confirmed the basic accuracy of the hockey stick.
-----

Etc. He found some errors (good, that is how science works) and the
research was updated and became the most peer reviewed study in
history... and was found to be largely accurate.

And then you think YOU can denounce it WITHOUT EVIDENCE even though it
has been so heavily reviewed by peers.

A child would not be likely to work at being as ignorant as you seek
to be.

...

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

I am not surprised to see you run away... you have been bragging about
your ignorance and you want a cookie or something. I am not going to
give you one.





the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

But it ends up at the colon.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2019-09-30 6:16 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 6:06 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-30 6:01 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 4:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming


Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand
pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it.

Who cares? The point is you and others who deny science run to those
same fewer than 70 scientists, most of whom are widely regarded as
kooks, to "support" your anti-science views... and you ignore the
tens of thousands of scientists who actually have looked at the
evidence, have not had their views and research heavily debunked, and
at least largely accept the consensus.

But you change the topic to your knowledge of the list of kooks you
and your anti-science crowd go to. So what? Do you think you being
ignorant of yet another thing is somehow a point in your favor?

And below you go off into insults and accusations. Not biting. And
then you reference, get this, your own link saying you do not buy
into the science. I agree: you reject the science. Again, so what? Do
you want a cookie for being ignorant?

...

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know
about you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read
Â*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0


Bottom line: you have NOTHING but a focus on your own unsupported
claims tied to hand picking from a list of fewer than 70 scientists
who reject the general consensus.

Oh, and from that list you have now added looking at McKitrick to
back your denial. He is an economist, not even a relevant scientist,
and has been debunked.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ross-mckitrick

-----
Ross McKitrick, along with Stephen McIntyre both attacked the math
and modeling of the 'Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Hockey Stick.
Consequently, the MBH 1999 became probably the most peer reviewed
science paper in history.

The end results were that the adjustments McIntyre and McKitrick
suggested were statistically insignificant and did not degrade the
meaning of the MBH 1999 paper.
-----

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
-----
McKitrick coauthored one of the cornerstones of denialism with Steve
McIntyre (abbreviated as "M&M"). In this, they accused Mann et al.,
the authors of the original "hockey stick" paper, of "collation
errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data,
obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations
of principal components, and other quality control defects."[3] A bit
harsh — Mann et al. acknowledged errors and published a correction,
and the overall hockey stick was unchanged. Other authors have
confirmed the basic accuracy of the hockey stick.
-----

Etc. He found some errors (good, that is how science works) and the
research was updated and became the most peer reviewed study in
history... and was found to be largely accurate.

And then you think YOU can denounce it WITHOUT EVIDENCE even though
it has been so heavily reviewed by peers.

A child would not be likely to work at being as ignorant as you seek
to be.

...

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no
point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

I am not surprised to see you run away... you have been bragging
about your ignorance and you want a cookie or something. I am not
going to give you one.





the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

But it ends up at the colon.

i don't even think they have that rank here

On 9/30/19 6:25 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-30 6:16 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 6:06 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-09-30 6:01 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 9/30/19 4:27 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
...
As many who deny the science do, you ran to the one of fewer
than 70
scientists who actually deny the science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming


Do you really think that that list in Wikipedia is the be-all and
end-all of scientists who, as you say, "actually deny the science"?

You miss the point: to back your denial of science you run to
those 70
or so scientists, ignoring what the tens of thousands say to hand
pick them.

I never knew the list existed until you pointed to it.

Who cares? The point is you and others who deny science run to those
same fewer than 70 scientists, most of whom are widely regarded as
kooks, to "support" your anti-science views... and you ignore the
tens of thousands of scientists who actually have looked at the
evidence, have not had their views and research heavily debunked,
and at least largely accept the consensus.

But you change the topic to your knowledge of the list of kooks you
and your anti-science crowd go to. So what? Do you think you being
ignorant of yet another thing is somehow a point in your favor?

And below you go off into insults and accusations. Not biting. And
then you reference, get this, your own link saying you do not buy
into the science. I agree: you reject the science. Again, so what?
Do you want a cookie for being ignorant?

...

That you should rely on Michael Mann tells me all I need to know
about you. The Mann behind the infamous hockey stick. Read
Â*
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aboxpmunn4...Stick.pdf?dl=0


Bottom line: you have NOTHING but a focus on your own unsupported
claims tied to hand picking from a list of fewer than 70 scientists
who reject the general consensus.

Oh, and from that list you have now added looking at McKitrick to
back your denial. He is an economist, not even a relevant scientist,
and has been debunked.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ross-mckitrick

-----
Ross McKitrick, along with Stephen McIntyre both attacked the math
and modeling of the 'Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Hockey Stick.
Consequently, the MBH 1999 became probably the most peer reviewed
science paper in history.

The end results were that the adjustments McIntyre and McKitrick
suggested were statistically insignificant and did not degrade the
meaning of the MBH 1999 paper.
-----

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
-----
McKitrick coauthored one of the cornerstones of denialism with Steve
McIntyre (abbreviated as "M&M"). In this, they accused Mann et al.,
the authors of the original "hockey stick" paper, of "collation
errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data,
obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations
of principal components, and other quality control defects."[3] A
bit harsh — Mann et al. acknowledged errors and published a
correction, and the overall hockey stick was unchanged. Other
authors have confirmed the basic accuracy of the hockey stick.
-----

Etc. He found some errors (good, that is how science works) and the
research was updated and became the most peer reviewed study in
history... and was found to be largely accurate.

And then you think YOU can denounce it WITHOUT EVIDENCE even though
it has been so heavily reviewed by peers.

A child would not be likely to work at being as ignorant as you seek
to be.

...

In any case, your demonstrable igorance is such that there is no
point
in continuing this discussion with you.

End of discussion with you.

I am not surprised to see you run away... you have been bragging
about your ignorance and you want a cookie or something. I am not
going to give you one.





the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

But it ends up at the colon.

i don't even think they have that rank here

Sanders created it here.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.

So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.

Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?

False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.


His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 12:43:43 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/30/19 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 07:47:07 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 9/28/19 3:49 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 21:41:42 -0700, Snit
wrote:
You nominated NASA. You pick the supporting evidence.
So you have no claim you want looked at. Nothing you find questionable.
Fair enough.

As far as their sources, they are quite open about them. Check out this
page, for example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Take the opening graph of CO2. No knowledgeable scientist would accept
that as data. I was going to ask you to tell me why, but I will help
you. The straight line to the 'current level' is from modern
instrumental data. The rest of it is from proxy data of some kind.
Combining data from multiple sources is common. Especially when dealing
with extremely long timescales. What would you suggest they do? Wait
200years and take equivalent ice cores then?

Instrument data should never be tacked on to proxy data like this. can
you tell me why?
False. It perhaps should made clearer, but not never.

His preference is we hand pick from one of the 70 or so scientists I
listed which deny the science, no matter how heavily debunked their
nonsense is, and believe them over the evidence that tens of thousands
of other scientists have largely agreed on.

Here is an interesting article from a David Middleton, a long
timepracticing geologist. I would be surprised if his name is on the
banned list. I bet it's too hard for you and you find an excuse to cop
out.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/...ge-hypothesis/


But that's using a steady state analysis, as a reassurance
we won't have a problem caused by a *sharp transient*.

The melting tundra is going to increase the slope of the
pCO2. And make things worse. It's the transient behavior
we have to worry about, within (your) lifetime.

Imagine everyone in China and India, buys an air conditioner.
That's part of the reason China is estimating the construction
of fifty 4GB coal powered generating plants. And that, of course,
will have no impact at all.

Back in the eeoocene, there weren't 2 billion people buying
air conditioners.

The response of the humans, *accelerates* the pCO2 curve.
It's the near term result of that, which matters.

I don't really care that 10,000 years from now,
"everything is just peachy". What if in the process
of the transient behavior, humans are wiped out ?
Would you care ? Probably not. "I'll be dead by then,
so it won't matter."

If my house were to catch fire, I would sit in my
Lazy Boy in the living room, drink a beer, and
note that "it's only in the kitchen right now,
I have plenty of time". "It's only in the hall
right now, I still have time for another beer."
This seems a perfectly reasonable response to a fire.
What could go wrong ? "10,000 years from now, someone
will have built another house." If we pick our plot
points on the graph-of-life carefully, we can be
pretty smug about things.

Paul