> The IPCC 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review. After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was

> The IPCC 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review. After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful. They are a political organization trying to raise money by carbon taxes on the developed countries to transfer wealth to the third world. Somehow I just lost 37 points today, 5 points from my post here and another 4 points on a post on how to help a 7 year old girl who went to the wrong comic book store. Apparently with HN arithmetic, 5 + 4 = 39. For the girl, I suggested she go to a music store that focused on classical music. I also suggested the movies, stores of American Girl. The comic book shop was right next to porn. Gee, my suggestion was not liked. > the vitriol that you fire at the NYT's opinions The NYT has long been and still is a NYC wild-eyed liberal, bleeding-heart, emotional hysteria organization, heavily for wealthy English majors and wannabees. I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise the NYT, but I fired no "vitriol" but (1) said good things about their graph but (2) criticized them for using extreme values to get people excited. Again, once again, over again, one more time, rock solid, for such a situation extreme values may be better than no data at all but, given good average data, one more time, this time just for you, once again, maybe you will actually read it this time, you can read, right, the extreme value data is useless. Or, some solid advice -- f'get about extreme value data. Stuff it for the hottest, the coldest, the least ice, the fastest winds, etc. Leave the importance of extreme values to, say, Olympic records. For GDP, that's an average. For the corn crop, we want an average. For crude oil production, we want an average, say, monthly. For global temperature to consider global warming, we want an average. An average, not extreme values. One biggie reason for the importance of the average is that it essentially is, has to be, what's important, e.g., the area under the curve, the total energy involved, etc. The average per day times the number of days is the total, e.g., as for your income and paying your taxes. But the NYT will use anything they can get away with to get their readers all hysterical, up on their hind legs, believing in their trilogy of transgression by evil humans against the pure, pristine, precious, 100% all-natural mother earth. So, it's a 1000 year old morality play they learned in English literature class. Then there is the retribution part -- destroy the coral reefs, the oceans, the whales, the forests, NYC via rising sea levels, etc. Then there is the redemption -- suffering, sacrifice, self-denial. So, walk or ride bicycles, use electric cars (NYC liberals hate anything having to do with cars -- in Texas, Wyoming, and Montana they like cars). In this way the NYT creates a story and an audience for their story and then just keeps running such stories to feed their audience. They also make NYC liberals feel good. If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades. You've been manipulated by some people who want your eyeballs, your money, your time, etc. What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off. The models are far too much in agreement and far too far away from reality -- what the models predicted for now is much, much higher temperatures than we are seeing. Just why the models are wrong, no one knows. Maybe they got the Navier-Stokes equations right, or the sunspot data right, or the black body radiation right, or the convection right, or some such, but messed up on the biological effects, the oceans, or whatever. Maybe we are still slowly pulling out of The Little Ice Age. As we warm from The Little Ice age, we will also have to warm the oceans, and they are mostly 3 miles down and 7 miles or so over much of the Pacific; it might take a long time to warm the oceans from the cooling they got in The Little Ice Age. There is the NAS report that shows that from year 900 to year 1000, just before The Little Ice Age started, the temperature was increasing very rapidly, about the same as the past 100 years, and that increase had nothing to do with human generation of CO2. But, given their record, and their nonsense with extreme values, there's no way to trust the NYT. So, we need to get their data from other sources. They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama. NASA? Sadly they may have been bent by Obama who wants global warming as one of his issues. While I hate the NYT, all I wrote about them was that they wanted people to get excited about extreme values, and there I was rock solidly correct. If you can't see this, then that's your problem.