Well that was easy Agree to Disagree

What's your next trick? — frank

I am not sure what you mean by that Frank.

Please explain it to a foolish old man.

I am not sure what you mean by that Frank.

Please explain it to a foolish old man. — Agree to Disagree

You're off the hook for climate change. :up:

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens.

It’s clear where some line up.

You're off the hook for climate change. :up: — frank

Help !!!

I am not sure if I have fallen into a universe of recursive sarcasm.

I was being sarcastic when I said "It is Big Oil's fault, not mine".

Now I am not sure if you thought that my comment was sarcastic and you have given me a sarcastic reply, or if you thought that my comment was genuine and you have given me a genuine reply.

To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.

If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat (warning - this comment may be sarcastic).

I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint. — Agree to Disagree

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid. — Mikie

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. — Agree to Disagree

lol. Glad you swallow their propaganda whole. Nice job.

To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.

If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.

Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat. — Agree to Disagree

I agree with you. I assume your point is that if the average person doesn't limit consumption, that makes your efforts to do so meaningless?

I agree with you. I assume your point is that if the average person doesn't limit consumption, that makes your efforts to do so meaningless? — frank

Yes, it is almost totally meaningless. And it is totally negligible. Why should I limit my consumption for something that is totally negligible.

It also does not seem like "justice" that I make an effort when most other people don't.

Yes, it is almost totally meaningless. And it is totally negligible. Why should I limit my consumption for something that is totally negligible.

It also does not seem like "justice" that I make an effort when most other people don't. — Agree to Disagree

Yes. It's true.

"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097

Interesting seeing that headline in the WSJ. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.

"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping." — RogueAI

I have been looking at temperature data for the USA on the internet. There is a lot of interesting information. For those who are open-minded enough to have a look, here is just one example (there are many more).

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records/all/tmax

This webpage has data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For each state the webpage shows the state name, the element, the value, the date, the location, etc. Note that near the top of the page it says "August U.S. Release: Mon, 11 Sep 2023, 11:00 AM EDT". Ignoring the fact that "Mon, 11 Sep 2023" is in the future, we can assume that the data on this webpage is recent.

For each state have a look at the record maximum temperature and the date that it occurred on. To make things easier to understand there is a Wikipedia webpage showing the same data. The advantage of the Wikipedia webpage is that you can sort on any of the columns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes

The table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 inhabited U.S. territories during the past two centuries, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.

Go to the table a little way down the page. Click on the "sort" control in the Date column for "Record high temperatures (the 3rd column in). Click on the "sort" control again to sort the dates into descending order.

Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature AFTER 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 20.

Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.

8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.

24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.

What do people think that this data means?

"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097
Interesting seeing that headline in the WSJ. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago. — RogueAI

Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.
8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.
24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.
What do people think that this data means? — Agree to Disagree

The record hottest day in California was in Death Valley. The coldest in Alaska was -80 at Prospect Creek. Regardless of the authority of the source, how could this data possibly address global warming or even 'hottest month ever'?

Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/

I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith.

I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith. — Benkei

I am not arguing.

All that I did was show people some data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?".

Ah, yes, let's ignore the context of your previous posts and pretend you didn't mean what I thought you meant. Don't insult my intelligence.

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?". — Agree to Disagree

Right— says the guy who uses meat companies’ websites as an authority on methane emissions, blames young people for their “Carbon footprint,” defends oil companies as “just giving people what they demand,” and claims nothing can be done to stop climate change.

“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”

Don’t worry— I’m not arguing. I’m just asking questions.

@Agree to Disagree
Worth reposting, since you completely ignored it:

Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/ — Benkei

Both links are worth reading. For anyone truly interested in this topic, as you claim to be, doing so is the bare minimal.

I just wanted to thank both of you for showing that you can engage someone without anyone being called a "buffoon" or anyone being told to "shut the fuck up." That's great!

I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?". — Agree to Disagree

What do you think it means?

“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?” — Mikie

I have taken 10 seconds and here is my answer.

The data that I showed people was presumably compiled by scientists (possibly climate scientists). All that I did was bring it to people's attention. So I am not deluding myself.

If you are surprised by the data that I pointed out then you should take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".

A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?".

You're pretending to be a statician and then come up with 2 datapoint per year per state that only relate a maximum and minimum temperature? :rofl:

From the website you used, here's the page you should be using: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series

trends in fahrenheit:
Alabama: +0.2
Alaska: +3.3
Arizona: +2.0
California: +2.3

Well you get the picture...

“Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".

A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?". — Agree to Disagree

:lol:

You cracked the case buddy.

The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” because they’re trying to fool people into getting scared about climate change, so that China, George Soros, and the UN can implement more controls and usher in the New World Order.

Thank you for educating us with your groundbreaking work, blowing the lid off the whole thing. I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.

I have never claimed to be a statistician, but I have done a number of mathematics and statistics courses at university. I am very proficient with Microsoft Excel and I normally use Excel for calculating statistics.

When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two.

The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” — Mikie

You don't seem to understand. The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data.

If you are casting doubt on this data then you are casting doubt on the scientists/climate scientists who compiled this data.

Are you suggesting that we can't trust scientists/climate scientists?

When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course. — Agree to Disagree

It's called cherry-picking.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two. — Agree to Disagree

It's the same website as yours. Please stop lying here or we'll take that as trolling. Stop pretending surprise, or lack of time - while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country, or, indeed, pretending you didn't know the data was there on the NOAA website or that there was an ice age scare in the 70s (there wasn't).

You don't understand the claims made by the IPCC and introduce irrelevant data and then become disingenuous with your "innocent" questions. You're reinforcing my earlier suspicion you're not here in good faith.

while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country — Benkei

Why didn't you ask me where I got 216 countries from, rather than accuse me of lying.

As well as the 195 countries that you mentioned I also calculated data for these 28 locations
American Samoa (US), Anguilla (UK), Aruba (NL), Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands (UK), Channel Islands, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Curacao, Faroe Islands (Denmark), French Guiana, Gibraltar (UK), Greenland (Denmark), Guadeloupe, Isle of Man (UK), Macedonia, Martinique, Moyotte, New Caledonia (France), Northern Mariana Islands (US), Puerto Rico (US), Reunion, Saint Helena (UK), Swaziland, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), U. S. Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna (France)

I didn't have any data for these 7 locations
Andorra, Eswatini, Ivory Coast, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Palestine, Romania

Note that 195 + 28 - 7 = 216

I had to use the locations that were already in the raw data that I processed.

It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. — Agree to Disagree

You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. The min-max temps are not highlighted or front and centre, the data I shared is, so you purposefully picked other data for a reason. Considering the thread you mostly post in, it's not hard to guess why.

You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. — Benkei

Do you realise how many webpages there are on the NOAA website?

How can I be expected to know about all of them? I probably only know about less than 1% of them.

There's a structure to it that I figured out in 2 minutes following your link and I'm not even a native speaker. But yes, I'm sure you're "smart enough" to challenge climate science but "too dumb" to read. I call a big pile of stinking bullshit.

The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data. — Agree to Disagree

Right right— you just discovered that they’re hiding it from the public. Excellent work.

Could you explain what you think this data shows?

Sent to you