Maggie's Farm

Why fix something that isn't broken?

You say that so hopefully, as if expecting a rational reply in kind from a clattering site robot(s).

Hit the clattering site robot(s) up with the fact that there is no evidence that any current temp change as a function of average global climate can be tied to man made emissions. Then hit the clattering site robot(s) up with the fact that current science - there's that word again - finds quite the contrary, including that in the mean, climate is wholly regulated by the sun which happens to near a pair of down cycles simultaneously.

Then hit the clattering site robot(s) up with the fact that the level of outright fraud associated with AGW-brand "warming" is at epidemic levels.

This strategy wins over arguing with the clattering site robot(s) on its own terms, for example when the clattering site robot(s) assert that purported temperature rise evidences purported AGW which is purportedly based on artificial emissions made in purportedly sufficient volumes. Because all of that is wholly unsupported.

Real humans have graphs too, puppies, and they're - and here's that word again - science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

Note that therein no real human data actually supports the AGW fraud. An inconvenient fact.

The problem with our clattering site robot(s) is that it/they only regurgitate its/their programming, as has been inadvertently demonstrated in this very thread. Send it/them to a source not in the program and they come back with some rote nonsense scraped from some obscure memory.

Oops, the clattering site robot(s) blew another gasket(s). Read between the lines on its little monochromatic green screen and find that it answered the founded claim that, and I quote, "there is no evidence that any current temp change as a function of average global climate can be tied to man made emissions" with an entire trifecta of transparent, fallacious appeals to its own clattering theory-programming, which states that because you can, for example, visualize cows jumping over the moon, every time there's an audible thud it is, as a matter of Consensus Science, indisputable evidence of a cow landing.

Transparent, that. And wholly typical of the clattering site robot(s).

Next up on the thing's rudimentary clattering 10" display(s) is the thing(s) clearly deploying its second fallacy: That in the present context of its own rote assertions that man is warming the planet by containing the sun's radiation nature is in fact doing thus.

Of course I wasn't making a claim on general nature but on Al Gore's globe -that being the AGW robot(s) obsession and programmed conjecture - and again within that context, correctly observing that the Sun was the driver. Which it is. Entirely.

Volcanoes modulate. Sun inputs. Still no AGW in evidence.

Stuff does in fact influence climate. Probably why we call it climate. AGW just lacks the evidence to prove itself. AGW is therefore unfounded. Not without theoretical impetus - theory being the clattering site robot'(s) sole programming - but as a matter of knowledge, AGW is unfounded.

Thudding cows are also unfounded. They just are.

Conjecture? Not scientific evidence.
Theory? Not scientific evidence.
Clattering fallacy? Not scientific evidence.
Plummeting bovines? Not scientific evidence.

This is why it serves no rational purpose to "argue" with clattering site robots. They cannot hear.

The clattering site robot (CSR(s)) may have fouled another plug. Note that when you simply conflict it(s) with the fact it(s) answered a question about apples with an answer made of oranges you're "incoherent". To wit:

Meh: There's no conclusive evidence of AGW. There is conjecture about AGW. Since there is no conclusive evidence of AGW it fails to earn the label of proved "science" and the onus thus falls on AGW hysterics to eventually present it and to ask to be taken seriously.

Whether AGW occurs and is ruining Earth is unproved - it cannot be confirmed and it does not rise to "science", which is shorthand for confirmed knowledge. AGW therefore remains a theory. This does not mean it does not exist but technically we cannot say for certain whether cows jump over the moon when nobody's looking either.

Clattering Site Robot(s): AGW is so and you're incoherent because some guy developed this greenhouse theory a million years ago. I like monochromatic green, as it turns out. And narrow perspectives. Have I shown you my tiny CRT display? It's like a big green eye. I'm like a down-sized green HAL. [BZZZT]

Meh: Sorry, CSR(s), that greenhouse thing is still theory - since debunked in various places - kinda like how us human people types all pretty much accept the theory that climate self-regulates on Earth pretty much forever otherwise us human people types wouldn't be here having dumb "conversations" with machinery.

Nobody denies that a greenhouse theory exists. I have a copy here somewhere. Real human people types like us just happen to know that while theory exists it has not been proved to hold for Earth's climate which naturally means that AGW cannot be proved, which means that AGW remains conjecture. 'Cause that's just the way it is. Sorry to go over this so many times but your input pipe or funnel or whatever may be obstructed.

Clattering Site Robot(s): I shall now regurgitate the same clattering dot matrix output as before. [Scrapes memory and spits out the identical fallacy.]

Meh: Figured as much. That's kinda robotic(s), CSR(s).

Clattering Site Robot(s): I shall now regurgitate the same clattering dot matrix output as before. [Scrapes memory and spits out the identical fallacy.]

Meh:

Clattering Site Robot(s): I shall now regurgitate the same clattering dot matrix output as before. [Scrapes memory and spits out the identical fallacy.]

Meh:

Clattering Site Robot:

Meh:

This is why arguing with the thing(s) is futile. It's(s) a thing. In a way you can't blame it(s) for its(s) own unawareness.

Real unemployment last 24 years:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

^ Folks, this proves that the clattering site robot(s) is a programmed entity. It cannot read the visible text on the page in question, stating:

"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers."

This also demonstrates that the clattering site robot(s) is incapable of deducing a simple fact: unemployment peaked at the global financial crisis of approximately 2008 and hasn't recovered. There is an argument that the present Administration has positively affected employment rolls, but part-time labor and the permanently unemployed are at or near all time highs.

The notion that the Obama era had any positive effect on the economy is entirely false and has no metric to support it. This does not vindicate the foolish Bush Administration before it and it does not, yet, vindicate the Trump Administration following it, but the clattering site robot(s) tacit claim that 2009-2017 either demonstrates Democrat economic acumen or a rollicking economy is as preposterous as it is, well, robotic.

^ The clattering site robot(s) (CSR(s))programming may be pedestrian, mundane, and dimensionless but you can't say its programmer didn't imbue it with a certain craftiness.

Here the CSR(s) floats the proposition that when the government openly rejiggles statistics to conform reality to a political, partisan expectation and Pravdas out a narrative that it somehow still reflects reality, but when another entity corrects this ploy it inherently cannot reflect reality, even when said effort tracks the very data the CSR(s) is drawing from for much of its falsehoods.

This would be visibly fallacious of the CSR(s) (the definition of which word we humbly implore the CSR'(s) programmer to include at the thing's next schedule code update).

The CSR(s) compounds this intentional diversion by apparently blaming the correcting entity, without evidence, of deceit! If the CSR(s) enjoyed irony this would be a prime time at which to do so. Oh Programmer!

Not yet at the end of its little green screen, the CSR(s) then circularly reverts to what it's programmer should instruct it is the very same politically-adjusted statistic that's already been put into meaningful context. Apparently CSR(s) are blind too; we already know they cannot listen.

As a confirmation of the wafer-thin depth of its internal memory, the CSR(s) also includes a third non-starter in which it purports to show that the nation's GDP, forever compounded by inflation, rose during the Obarry regime, as if to prove out its affection for quasi-Marxist economics. This too is a misleading output the CSR(s) dot-matrix's into existence so as not to illuminate but obfuscate.

Of course, inflation accumulated and rose appreciably during said regime and a fuller analysis would reveal that the economy in general experienced a dark ages of accidental, even begrudging, dead-cat-bounce recovery, ultra-high unemployment, stagnation, offshoring, inner city ruin, and the like, the result being anything from record trade deficits to record debts to record high consumer prices to a record high Fed balance sheet to, well, Detroit.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.aPJZHnS50XqhBGRRIxu7WAHaEo&pid=Api

http://www.investivdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/figure-1-inflation.png

And through all this, what powered the "economy"? QE.

Suddenly the vividness of Baeraq's masterful economic chops fades and defocuses. Given that BO did indeed inherit the financial collapse and that he had no where to go but up, it's painfully amusing to know that, well, he did just that.

One does have to give the CSR(s) credit for one truthful statement, however, namely that: "we prefer data to wishful thinking". I am indeed wishful that the thing(s) one day stops relying on its own data.

What can I say?