Maggie's Farm

That is not quite accurate. First of all, there is Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), which also provides a satellite-based temperature product, one which is more consistent with the surface trend. More particularly, satellites don't measure temperature, but radiation. Scientists then try to determine the temperature from the radiation. A significant problem is separating radiation of the troposphere, which is warming, from the radiation of the stratosphere, which is cooling. Another problem is that satellites have to be replaced every few years, resulting in changes in instrumentation. Even orbital decay can affect the measurements. In addition, surface measurements provide strong scientific evidence of warming, and is consistent with evidence from a multitude of fields.

Some of the discrepancy between the surface and satellite trend is thought to be due to natural variability. See Po-Chedley et al., Natural variability contributes to model–satellite differences in tropical tropospheric warming, PNAS 2021.

indyjonesouthere: Quantified: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

As the article notes, the Earth is warming. It disputes how fast the Earth is warming.

indyjonesouthere: It has been warming for a few thousand years.

Actually, the Earth's surface had been generally cooling for the last five thousand years or so. See Marcott et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science 2013.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_620_original_image/public/marcott2-13_11k-graph-610.gif
(Note the spike at the end of the chart.)

DrTorch: Marcott's paper should be retracted due to documented fraud.

And yet, it hasn't. Have you or McIntyre written to the journal Nature?

In any case, multiple studies using different proxies lead to much the same trend lines.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

That's just partisan silliness. Harris dropped a word: "The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people {and} in defense of the NATO Alliance.”

mudbug: So Harris really knows her geopolitics but can't manage to clearly say what she means?

Dropping a word is hardly indicative of lack of knowledge. As for clarity, you have to work at it to misunderstand. Hardly anyone outside Russia and the alt-right misconstrued her meaning.

B. Hammer: Shall we go back to all the quibbling you did over Trump’s very fine people remarks?

We use the principle of charity, but Trump has a long history of such comments. Unite the Right wasn't a gathering of ordinary conservatives or even defenders of the "heritage", but of out-and-out white nationalists. His meaning was intended for certain audiences that would otherwise be anathema.

Nor would the comparison even make sense. You want to claim that Harris doesn't know that Ukraine is not part of NATO, but that is not a justifiable conclusion. It's clear she misspoke, and that the vast majority of people understood her meaning.

The legal problem is the submission of different values to banks when compared to values submitted to tax authorities.


Appraisals express market value at the time of the valuation, what it would sell for then, not what it may or may not sell for in the future. (Rising prices camouflaged over-valuations in the lead-up to the financial meltdown in 2007-8.)

Christopher B: Nobody, not even Trump, 'submits' a property valuation to either taxing authorities or lenders.

Property valuations are commonly submitted on the balance sheet to tax authorities, as well as to lenders. For instance, in 2012, Trump submitted a valuation on a Wall Street property for $527 million to lenders, but only $17 million to tax authorities.

anon: for what purpose would Trump or anyone submit tax valuations.

For instance, to qualify for certain tax breaks, or to qualify for better loan terms. Meanwhile, Accounting firm: Trump financial statements aren’t reliable

Aggie: And yet they're dropping the case.

They haven't dropped the case, but it may be winding down. The problem is that they have to prove that Trump was aware of the discrepancies and meant to use them for corrupt purposes. He is still subject to civil remedies for any discrepancy.

JustMe: So, do you think with enough illegal fishing subpoenas that they can find something anything to punish Trump

While America prides itself on equality before the law, it's clear that the rich and powerful are not held to the same account as ordinary citizens. Trump even cheated his own charity! But Trump can be held civilly liable.

DrTorch: You post accusations about Trump where you have no evidence . . .

There is significant evidence that Trump provided high valuations for banks and low valuations for tax purposes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-organization-investigation-new-york-prosecutors-property-value-discrepancy-2021-11

DrTorch: yet you vehemently defend Clinton.

There are a lot of reasons to criticize Clinton, but made up stuff is not one of them.

SK: she just launders money through Perkins-Coie

There's no evidence of that. Of note, their tax returns are public, their source of wealth is public.

Your reflexive making stuff uppism is pitiable.

SK: That's comical.

That's comical. When confronted with the lack of evidence for your assertion, your reply is notable for the lack of evidence.

DrTorch: US funded bio-weapon labs in Ukraine and Georgia

Others have responded concerning the inherent injustice of the Russian invasion.

You are just echoing Russian propaganda concerning bio-weapons labs. Bio-weapons labs were remnants from the Soviet era, but have been converted, with Western assistance, to bio-research labs for peaceful purposes.